The URL can be used to link to this page

127 SKYLINE DR.PDF11111111111111 13128 127 SKYLINE DR r R] • TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: L/ BUILDING PERMIT (NEW COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver PERMITS (OTHER) fYL 6 PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: 2�76 LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: ,�l SIDE SEWER PERMITS) #: ,!2 GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: L:\TEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc BUILDING DEPARTME "— Alicant Fill ZON E KS NI 7�GU33 In idepp PERMIT APPLICATIS Heavy lines son NNAME OF BVSIN CSSI HX ADOFESS / Z_ LEGAL LOT E ` at AI LINO: AODRES.a _ LO AREA ` 5ll��BOIVISION NO. ,l/YES ❑ NO ' 1 r-�OO lam_ V 11 IQ VARIANCE OR ll. _ CITY mot' //7 TELEPHONE NUMBER L /�yy d� �S/L• COND. USE NO. AD© NG. �f/QD IV �' 1/-9� i/7 N A.. PROPOSED YARDS �_ FRONT yI U V 7 hrj.�! �r�✓ SIDE V REAR �J ALLOWAULE Z Z I(J W ADOR ESS F PROPOSED SIGN AREA SIGN AREA a _ 002 /96 7`4 V OTHER REQUIREMENTS CITY 2 TELEPHONE NUMBER W L",n COC NAME T. APPROVAL DATE � tv� J� Y ((�i (.�� 'J' -• /fir I I G �sreE: Q �ry/x eti� F AO DR ESS STREET R/W EXISTING STREET R/W",/(,(3 FT. DEFICIENCY THIS PROPERTY V < COMP. PLAN ST. R" FT, Z% FT, E CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER ° REMARKS Dry sway slopes not to erSceedshoes ° U STATL LICE NSL' NUMBER indvicated' o.• Standard Dw� No. 103 < CITY LICENSE NUMBER\L L)ii--. (• ^^ r' - CHECKED BY W Iy Z Legal Description of Property (Show Below or Attach Four Copies) STRCET AND/OR UTILITY YES D Z W WORK REQ•D NO z // J �R❑-v UNDERGROUND RYES G F aGAT S/ �"'B C, /a / C/� G WIRING REO'D ❑ NO E -� V TYPE CONNECTION VERIFIED BY in W n _ SEPTIC SYSTEM Cl YES PERMIT NUMBER C < APPVD BY CITY ENE. C.,NO W 4 U W J REMARKS W in METIZE SERVICE SIZE CLEARANCE CHECKED REMARKS G ). NEW RESIDENTIAL r'� ❑GAS LINE ADD NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ SIGN FIRE ZONER N CODE _ U6�-dHa • DEMOLISH ❑ ALTER EXCAVATE ❑ WEA `LINING REQU REINSPECTOR EA OCCUPANCY OCCUPANT GgOVP OR PILL ❑ FENCE ❑ ❑ YES NO I LOAD REPAIR ❑PRE•MOVESWIM I, X_F•r) PLAN CH c o BY F a THIS SITE IS L GATED IN THE CITY - W INS P, POOL �- OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX O NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER -OF EM SHO D B D DWELLING UNITS )A//KS �r� p z, J NATURE OF WORK TO BE LybNE O PROPOSED USE Z O PLAN CHECK VALUATION FEE- I- a PLOT PLAN INDICATE BUILDING SETA qC KS, NO. �- _ - ABUTTING STREETS WI m - BUILDING 7 �- O d O� / O/ D PLUMBINGCn Y O HEAT & GAS LINE FENCE SIGN RETAINING WALL - -- SWIMMING POOL i hereby nckaowletlga that I have read this application; the, the In- formntloa Riven la TOTAL AMOUNT DUE �f d correct; and that I am the Owner, or the duly -MUG iced agent of tha owner. I '/ ~J agree to comply with city and stale levee re Ru- Iat!ng.eonstruction; and In doing the work authorleed thereby, no person ATTENTION will be employed In 110111Uon of the Labor Code of the Biala Of w•ashington APPLICATION APPROVAL relating t0 Workmen•. Cot yell.: atio. lnsuranea, THIS PERMIT NOTE: Permit Limit One Year AUTHORIZES This application IS not a permlt until (Except DEMOLITIONS which shall. be completed In -Italy dnye;. \10VED-IN BUILDINGS ONLY THE elgned by the Building OffiLln! or his Dep. shall be win•- pitted In six months.) WORK NOTED Uty; and fees are paid, and receipt 1s aC- SIGNATURE UH¢ (O\YNEH OR AGENT OAT¢ INSPECTION knowiedged In space provided. SIGNED / L• Q / �C—/�O Ou A.TMENT It R' SIG TV ¢ A CITY OF 17 VOTE: ii/ip Clllif $1/()f" 70 Mall Check /'CC EDMONDS DATE This Permit coven work to bB done on private property ONLY, %i $•2$2S� Any construction on thu public domain (Curtis, sidewalks, driveways, mnrque+s, ntc.) will requite saparata permission. ORIGINAL • fPr YELLOW • PINK • 0a r GOLD • A .. , If A -- Z::� BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NAME (OR NAME OF BUSINESS) Applicant Fill zoENE (J `� NUM 780577 Inside Heavy Lines l' [SUBDIVISION oe lb ADDRESS NO. I PLAT AQ AME IASSESSOR MAP NO. E vADR " V W AILING S �//11�./�- �:� PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER ORDINANCE C�1_ Y ELEPHONE NUMBER V7 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY �' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY �7^� NAME F. U DEFICIENCY OF RIGHT OF WAY CJ F ADDRESS STREET/UTILITY WORK REQUIRED El YES 4*NO x u PERMIT FOR WORK IN PUBLIC R/W UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED ❑YES ❑YES 4NO 10NO E CITY a TELEPHONE NUMBER CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER SEPTIC TANK PERMIT REQUIRED OYES ❑YES MNO *NO NAME E Z�/G % �. SEPTIC TANK PERMIT NO. O ADDRESS I F SEE MEMO DATED � f U �—� < E CITY TELEPHNN OE UMBER REMARKS o �� v _ ov . U STATE LICENSE NUMBER CITY LICENSE NUMBER CHECKED BY - I 4 4 or Attach Four Copies) ■METER SIZE I BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE Z t�15TING SSRVIcE SIGN AREA ENV. REVIEW ADB NO. v ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT REMARKS GjTF_ j)fLAIw ACHE pev- ot_1)- 1714 ]VARIANCE OR CU IPLANNING REVIEW BY DATE YARDS I :20 FRONT 5 SIDE NEw RESIDENTIAL ❑GAS LINE FIRE ZONE TYPE OF CONSTR ❑ NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ SIGN P21vpT>r a ADD RETAINING ❑ SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA DEMOLISH Lj WALL REQUIRED ❑ ALTER ❑ ORCFILLTE ❑FENCE ( X—FT)IVAW ❑ YES NO PLAN CHECK BY ❑ REPAIR a PRE -MOVE POOL REMARKS NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING V 111 P` UNITS NATURE OF TO B DONE 7 pOO L - p METNoO . LOT COVERAGE S� REAR CTION CODE 0o L i q76 H OCCUPANT LOAD I I'1' L. 1 �J THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITV OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX SHOULD BE CODED 31.04. OCCUPANCY GROUP _ , AtL WwST WAXER VM11125HL SEA A'ITl4[.H-,_D Q,E6if► I-S . VALUATION I FEE O a PLOT PLAN TIND14TE BUILDING SETBACKS, uBUILDING IQTWO - PLUMBIN !, n 0 MECHANICAL � s h {- FENCE -- t`A SIGN 7(/ b RETAINING WALL 3 i SWIMMING POOL 5 00V Q .51"AAIN y 5/ mow S. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the in- TOTAL AMOUNT DUE formation given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly author- ized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and state laws regu- ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL lating construction; and in doing the work authorized thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor Code of the State of Washington THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit relating to Workmen's Compensation Insurance. AUTHORIZES until signed by the Building Official or NOTE: Permit Limit One Year(Except DEMOLITIONS and FILL ONLY THE his Deputy; and fees are paid, and PERMITS without conditional use permit, which shall be completed in 90 WORK NOTED receipt is acknowledged in space pro - days; MOVED -IN BUILDINGS shall be completed in six months.) vided. SIGN UR Lf(OWNER O GENT) DATE SIGNED INSPECTION j DEPARTMENT DIRECTO SIG A U C CITY OF h-4 EDMONDS DATE This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. 775-2525 Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, r marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. ATTENTION ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC 304, 306. 1 0 2-7 a N Y E 0 3 u_ J m 3 IL 3 F Z W f a a W 0 F Z W i IL 0 J W W Y F Z F F 0 u „_ <�R "-,t.„ •fir a NV ♦ ` ;r - .r+ ..y ..y.,. °�.., . y...," .,;��; elk f ' "L 1011PAItTM USE - E - .. �r � App:ant PIII ZONE � y� "`p,e, Nli n+BER �� APPLICATION Inside Heavy Lines _. roe (Oti NAMIt OF BUSINESS) ADDRESS 1 �, ✓° SU BDIV ISIONkNO. PLAT ,,��(1,� ME ASSESSOR MAP NO. r " WADDRESS � + f 0 C ° PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER ORDINANCE NQ, ELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY - NAM PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY I- DEFICIENCY OF RIGHT OF WAY U W h ADDRESS 1^i STREET/UTILITY WORK REQUIRED ❑YES -GNO N = PERMIT FOR WORK IN PUBLIC R/W ❑YESNO a+. 0 CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER t E K UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED ❑ YES NO U - CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER ❑YES 43NO m ' NAME SEPTIC TANK PERMIT REQUIRED DYES ,MONO � a C � , �`.•""^- t.,. „�� *r,�r a` z i '�,p4-�!:i{ k, r ?>_ � SEPTIC TANK PERMIT NO. . 0 ADDRRESS - t: } s ' F U "� / j SEE MEMO DATED - IL CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER REMARKS � I U TT LICENSE NUMBER CITY LICENSE NUMBER BY BY 1 - Legal Description of Property (Show Below or Attach Four Copies) METER SIZE BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE '` # _7 REMARKS " O 6 SIGN AREA ENV. REVIEW ADS NO. U N , . i' ws ' ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT . W J REMARKS 13 VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE - YARDSa + LOT COVERAGE ` `' �f NEW a RESIDENTIAL GAS FRONT" .41 SIDE .f REAR FIRE ZONE "- TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE HEIGHT LINE NON-RESIDENTIAL SIGN S✓�- i.; ,�,. ir„1 r - +�k -, ,-,_„- ADD El ❑ DEMOLISH RETAINING SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA WALL ❑ ALTER EXCAVATE ❑ FENCE X�) OR FILL REQUIRED 1I ❑ YES '{Zy„ NO JOCCUPANCY GROUP 1741 � OCCUPANT LOAD - — PRE -MOVE Swim ❑ LAN PCHECKED BY THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX REPAIR , INSP. POOL SHOULD BE CODED 31.04. NUMBER OF STORIES WUMSER OF REMARKS DWELLING UNITS !'t R } y+ �4�` t•.. '- ` , 1 `! � � s^i 4 !fi°r"R �.._. + J �,;, t Y. `?`"'$... �-+, ... ,� �" � a 'w d �. F Z W NATURE OF WOWK TO BFy,DONE #t^ig Z 4 0 PLAN CHECK FEE VALUATION FEE PROPOSED USE Z F LAN (INDICATE BUILD IN SETBACKS, ABUTTING BUILDING d 0 W.1 G °ti._..,...__._..._.»,..,...,,.-..�.«.-,...,....___.�_..., PLUMBING W y O I MECHANICAL W ' - 9 FENCE SIGN Z RETAINING WALL $ r 0 SW,IMMI.NG POOL U „ a ' I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that.the in- TOTAL AMOUNT DUE formation given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly author- ized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and state laws regu- lating construction; and in doing .the work authorized thereby, no person ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL be will employed in violation of the Labor Code of the State of Washington THIS PERMIT relatingto Workmen's Compensation This application is not a permit pensatiOn Insurance. pp AUTHORIZES until signed by the Building Official NOTE: Permit Limit One Year (Except DEMOLITIONS and FILL ONLY THE his Deputy; and fees are paid, and PERMITS without conditional use permit,,which shall be completed in 90 WORK NOTED receipt is acknowledged in space pro - days; MOVED -IN BUILDINGS "shall be completed in six months.) vided. SIGNATURE (OWNER OR AGENT) DATE SIGNED INSPECTIOM ' DEPARTMEN'1C DIRECTOR,'a SIGNATURE '-'� CITY i E D �8 / DATE T[Mi r be doiW 64Ipp��pp, OIy�,� Any constr ction on the public domain (curbs sidaws oW6�rs, '�4 5- , dri ItlargµagS) v�yuLion. m y I�" n,§ t i ATTENTION i ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OWSTRUCTURE PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC 304 ..a 102-78 F"CA"A •w.rrr ltr •'+ , plas Mrs", e ►^• PLUMBING --» Undenround ftugt}M Water s^rvlw HEATING SYSTEM FRAMING WALLBOARD FINAL i TA'CI4t WE CC.NL'O eF -rgAc- NOw�.�E TO PERMITTEE AND/OR OWNER ❑ PARTIAL APPROVAL ❑ VIOLATION [YCORRECTIONS REQUIRED PERMIT NUMBER JOB ADDRESS NO PERMIT — STOP WORK — REMOVE CONSTRUCTION OR OBTAIN El PERMIT AND MAKE WORK COMPLY WITH BUILDING LAWS. ❑CONSTRUCTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT — STOP WORK. MAKE EXISTING WORK COMPLY WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT OR REMOVE IT. ❑ STOP WORK — UNTIL AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY INSPECTOR. ❑CORRECTIONS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MADE BEFORE WORK CAN BE APPROVED. ❑ WORK DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND IS APPROVED. ❑CONTACT INSPECTOR AND RECALL FOR INSPECTION. ARRANGE FOR APPOINTMENT. % U AT fS - fE CL E�C:Z\; ill NiJGN t> 1-0 THE ACTIONS OR CORRECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE ARE REQUIRED WITHIN .................... DAYS OR PENALTIES IMPOSED BY LAW MAY BE APPLIED. FOR INSPECTIONS CALL: 775-2525. W ��e vL-, ©-BUILDING DIV. INSPECTOR ❑ PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF DATE Z ❑ FIRE DEPT. EDMONDS q INT,_)FFICE COMMUNICAT I S DATE January 19 TO Jerry Hauth FROM Harold Reeves Engineering Building Official rORM 41 - LITTLE'S SUBJECT: Dr. Lockyer's site drainage plan. For your review and comments. Ri5m6 12k6vI CC A PP'Ie0!-(...>✓ Ad As-Gu i RAuS INGS . 1983 �- 6016 204th SW richard J AN ,� 19�3 eedar-vaHe�roffice Rrk ing king, — lynnwood, washington 98036 architect January 14, 1983 (206)7714Q70 City of Edmonds Re: Site drainage for lot #53 Emerald Hills Building Department Existing residence of Dr. R. Lockyer att'n. Mr. H. Reeves Building official Dear Mr. Reeves: The enclosed site drainage proposal is submitted primarily to solve the water run-off from lot #54. The proposal is to col- lect roof and exterior concrete deck water run-off into down spouts that already exist and deck drains that already exist and drain them into the 12" storm line along Main Street. The sizes of the drain lines as indicated on the proposal draw- ing are in excess of those required for lot #54 only. The in- creased sizes will allow the addition of both lots #53 & #55 in to the system should the owners of those two adjoining lots de- cide to share in the use and the cost of this proposed system. Resolution of these adjoining lots #53 & #55 individual site drainage problems will be handled in the .future when such de- cisions become necessary due to future building. The estimated cost of this system is approximately $2,750.00, two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars. Your earliest reply to this proposal will be greatly appreciated so that we may continue with our plans. I believe, in the final analysis of costs, appearance and maintenance to be a better overall system than that of detention ponding, and will allow the residents of this area to use the storm facility as intended. Sincerely, l� 1 1 �D R.T.King m 12 4'+ 7ZO j, 0. ' ,T,ctIL t7iatN , • �X1ZTQCf, 3s' -- ��o TL '1129 i-i;Tt%T ARL ROPOSED S17LC PA, Cr 19LAA1 407S 53 54 f. 5ro `'TnfE CF ViA�iitAvTU;d C-kfr:-RAL.D AWLS C-VMOAJD§� &/A. 114163 �-+ ' O it t 1S z L F P�ilr; NO WAmR—. fit'° O" A TIJR,A1;Y the f us. by tea S City of I r cc:,; `' Tc Gic';, of Edr,;o,166 da- fiv e,:. , t' a.; i.,ap A , pmuit o, eot«V r, . a ire t irt.i.iE ; (6g&& th in,e 6 4 iiffii E," tc, the loc6d".v; Qi aw,, Orfr lift oi tii Ciff,,/J� 1 i r tr i; rna , oci fci �q G. iepil�.:.>.�I,cuiU � ..�'s,'r�� 1rZ.eu�! li►iyit S�f�i (Cid�/, z �, °z H o n 0 b n z c A � o z o z a m� APPLICATION c The City of Edmonds for EASEMENT "NO ---------------- ........ . SIDE SEWER PERMIT REPAIRS , . - � � • NEW 'CON'STRUCTION • ❑ ❑ LID NO. AS11iT. NO. OWNER _ :.. ..: /." - ._..__ CON'TRACTOR �r�GL __.__._._ ��Ir /..... ---• --- -- PERMIT, ._.- / 1 'T �-t• /L LEGAL DESCRIPTION:'LOT NO. 1-17T.. _._.-y B ADDRESS.. 1: .__... �i l? BLOCxµ.NO, NAME OF ADDITION ......... -'7i i_ _'►'L-. 4- --------W.Jel S------------------------ ! AMIVED / 3 m'l_ t976 Pubic Dept.. W „pProv+ed: -- --------------- -- By .............................. -- '. • r CITY OF EDMONDS 250. 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER May 22, 1984 Mark Eames Ogden, Ogden and Murphy 2300 Westin Building 2001 - 6th Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Dear Mark: TARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR OCC C, V , l'� ci r 2 3 /y�4 C/Jy OF £DMON DS SUBJECT: EDMONDS VS. LOCKYER (127 SKYLINE DRIVE) After the site inspection and our discussion, the following are my opinions of the rockery and swimming pool: There are opposing views within the engineering profession regarding the ability to design a rockery structural retaining wall. About one-half of the engineers that I know feel that rockery should be considered only as a cosmetic feature. The structural integrity of a rockery wall is dependent upon many factors, to include, but not limited to: 1. The bearing capacity of the underlying soil. 2. The depth of bedding. 3. The strength of the rock. 4. The slope of the rockery. 5. The size of the rocks. 6. The keying of the rocks. 7. Material behind the rockery. 8. Ground water. 9. Workmanship. From our cursory inspection, I am concerned about: 1) The depth of the bedding. It appears that there may not be sufficient resistance by the soil in front of the first row of rocks to keep them from kicking out. 2) The strength of the rock. Some of the rocks are fractured. 3) The keying of the rocks. There appeared to be a minimum of surface contact between the rocks. Mark Eames May 22, 1984 Page 2 4) Material behind the rockery. The contractor stated that he had backfilled between the fine graded, existing embankment and the rockery with a coarse, crushed rock. This will allow the fine materials to migrate and form voids. This is a complete violation of good engineering practice. 5) Ground water. This is an unknown quantity, but if a leak developed in the swimming pool, it could be devastating. 6) Workmanship. I have seen very few projects where there was evidence of poorer workmanship. a. The swimming pool is approximately one foot off level. Dr. Lockyer stated that it was constructed that way. If so,•this validates my premise of poor workmanship. We have no way to determine that it did not settle. b. The majority of the concrete slabs have pro- nounced differential settlement. This is the result of either poor compaction or voids forming, the result of poor workmanship. c. The rockery contractor stated that he had built only one rockery similar to this that had failed. He claimed that the failure was due to him following the direction of his client. I contend that a journeyman or professional does not follow the advice of a layman when he knows it is wrong. My opinion is biased, due to the possible damage which would be caused down slope in the event of a failure. I believe an added factor of safety is required in this instance. In my opinion the water should be immediately drained from the swimming pool until this matter is settled. In my opinion, a dramatic failure could result from a leak in the pool, which would saturate the soil, reducing the bearing capacity and cause the rockery to fail; or differential settlement in the pool area, which is occurring now, causing stress on the bottom of the pool, which would result in a fracture. In my opinion, the latter is the most likely. • • Mark Eames May 22, 1984 Page 3 I recommend that we advise Dr. Lockyer that he should secure the services of a recognized expert geotechnical engineer, who -is acceptable to the City, and have the engineer submit a recommendation to us for review. Sincerely, yESEAAS, P.E.M Engineer JEA/st A. 0 MAR 2 71984 yew1W14A� WIQ�� -,G, 9j L!! R. MOHAIR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 623-6042 March.26, 1984 Ms. Julie A. Sevenich Attorney at Law 402 - 5th Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Dr. & Mrs. Robert Lockyer Rockery at 127 Skyline Drive Dear Ms. Sevenich: In response to your letter dated March 12, 1984 to Dr. & Mrs. Robert Lockyer and your letter dated March 9, 1984 to.Harold Reeves and Wayne Tanaka, you have made some conclusions which un- fortunately are based on some incorrect information. I feel it is very irresponsible on your part to write these letters without checking out the source of your information. For example, you said you "advised" the City of Edmonds that the pool is "apparently leaking 100 gallons of water per day." At this rate the Lockyer's pool would have been dry several years ago. The truth of the matter is that the pool does not leak nor has it ever leaked. The proof of this is that the level of the pool water has not changed, i.e., no water has had to be added to the pool. You concluded that since there is leakage, that the water is running through the rockery causing loosening of the rocks. The truth is that no water from either the drainage or the pool is running through the rockery, and no loosening of the rocks has occurred. I urge you to refrain from continuing to disseminate these false assertions in such an irresponsible manner! You may be dealing with clients who are exhibiting some irrational behavior based on a fear of having a rockery above their houses, no matter how safe it is. The Lockyer's have advised me that these same neighbors recently have caused the destruction and removal of some beautiful, healthy trees which were on community property above their houses solely for the reason that some day a wind might blow the trees over onto their houses. In fact a representative of the Emerald Hills Homeowners Association attempted to cut a tree down on the Lockyer's neighbor's property without their per- mission. The City of Edmonds originally required that these trees be left by the developer as part of the green -belt. A small irrational group had these trees removed without consulting the City of Edmonds or the homeowners of Emerald Hills. ti • Ms. Julie A. Sevenich March 26, 1984 Page 2 Getting back to the issue at hand, the Lockyers certainly do not want any hazard to exist on their property, but neither do they want to tear into a perfectly good rockery and swimming pool purely on the dubious grounds that some misinformed people have concluded that it may be unsafe. The City of Edmonds approved a building permit for the rockery and pool in 1978, and then it proceeded to inspect the rockery at least twice during its construction and gave its approval both times. The rockery and pool now have stood without change for almost 6 years corroborating its stability. The only problem which occurred during the construction was that the builder connected the downspouts from the house to the sanitary sewer instead of a drainfield or storm sewer. The Lockyers have made plans to correct ;this and.have.notified the City of Edmonds of these plans. An interesting fact is that the drainage is particularly safe at this time since there is no way that water can flow through the rockery, because it is connected to the sanitary sewer. This drainage, as stated above, will be corrected to meet City Code and in a manner which will maintain the safety of this rockery and comply with Code. In conclusion, your letter "demanding" that the Lockyers "alleviate the problem" of a leaking pool and drainage through the rockery simply are unfounded, because there has been no problem in the past 6 years nor does there appear to be any problem at present. I would commend your attention to getting the facts rather than relying upon assertions of persons who know not whereof they speak. Stir- ring up litigation has been known to backfire. If these actions of yourself and/or your client result in litigation, you can be assured that all interested parties will participate! Very truly yours, LEE R . McNAI R LRM/dm cc: Harold Reeves Mark Eames Robert Lockyer 0 • JAMES A. MURPHY* JOHN D. WALLACE DOUGLAS E. ALBRIGHT LEE CORKRUM•- WAYNE D. TANAKA C. GEOFFREY GIBBSt LARRY C. MARTIN ROBERT G. ANDRtt MICHAEL G. W ICKSTEAD OF COUNSEL RAYMOND 0. OGDEN. JR. RAYMOND D. OGDEN (1876-1972) RONALD A. MURPHY (1930-1983) LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN, OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622.2991 June 4, 1984 RECEIVED I.101 51994 Mr. Lee R. McNair ENGINEERING Lee R. McNair & Associates Inc. P.S. 328 Fairview Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 Re: Edmonds v. Lockyer Dear Lee: LS MARK A. EAMES R. MARK ALLEN STEVEN A. REISLER LAURA C. INVEEN CHRISTOPHER A. WASHINGTON° JAMES E. HANEY ROSEMARY P. BORDLEMAY SUE E. FREEBORN BARBARA 8. HEAVEY W. SCOTT SNYDER •ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA •' ALSO ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA t ALSO ADMITTED IN MONTANA t ALSO ADMITTED IN COLORADO. NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY 0 ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN This letter is to confirm a recent telephone message Mark Eames left with your receptionist indicating that the City will not pursue its motion for a preliminary injunction to have your client's swimming pool drained. This decision is based, to a certain extent, upon your client's assertion that his swimming pool does not currently leak, and has not leaked in the past. Recognizing that your client shares the City's concerns that his swimming pool and rockery not pose a significant risk to the surrounding neighborhood the City expects that if the swimming pool should begin to leak during the pendency of this lawsuit that we would be so notified and that all necessary corrective action.would be immediately taken. Please refer all future correspondence and pleadings to me. Very truly yours, OGDEN, OGDEN & MURPHY /s/ Wayne D. Tanaka WDT:jt cc: Jim Adams HENDRICKS, SEVENICH AND SEGEL13AUM ATTORNEYS AT. LAW 402 5TH AVENUE SOUTH EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 ALLEN J. HENDRICKS JULIE A. SEVENICH March 9, 1984 JOHN F. SEGELSAUM - Harold Reeves Building Official City of Edmonds Community Development Department Edmonds, Washington 98020 Wayne Tanaka Edmonds City Attorney OGDEN, OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 Westin Building. Seattle, Washington 98121 MAR 121984 RE: Robert Lockyer @ 127 Skyline Drive, Edmonds. Dear Sirs: I spoke with each of you on February 24, 1984, and advised both of you that the problem with the pool, rockery, and storm and sanitation sewers at the above referenced address continues without any action on the part of the City of Edmonds to correct the matter. As I indicated it is our understanding that the rockery and pool were constructed without the proper permits from the City of Edmonds and without the City of Edmonds inspecting or approving the construction as it is. It is further my understanding that the City of Edmonds has been advised and is aware that the storm sewer is connected to the sanitation sewer and the sewer was never inspected by the City of Edmonds prior to completion. During our telephone conversation, I advised you that the situation on Mr. Lockyer's property is becoming increasingly dangerous and hazardous to neighboring property individuals. Specifically, I advised you that the pool is apparently leaking, approximately one hundred (100) gallons of water per day, that water is visable in the rockery and is running through the rocks, causing them to loosen.. It is our belief that if water continues to run through the rockery, there is a 775-5551 775-5552 • • Harold Reeves Wayne Tanaka March 9, 1984 Page two substantial danger of onto the neighboring and property damage. the rockery colapsing and falling property, threatening both lives The Edmonds Building Department was advised of the problem back in 1982, and it appears that to date, -no action has been taken by the City to correct the problems and hazards related to the Lockyer's property. We believe the existing hazard is at least partially the result of the City's failure to properly inspect the project covered by the rockery permit and failure to inspect the installation of the sewers. By this letter you are being given written notice of our claim that the situation existing on the Lockyer property at 127 Skyline Drive, Edmonds, Washington, is extremely hazardous and dangerous to life and property. Further, you are being notified that it is our claim that the situation involved on the property is both the responsibility of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Lockyer, and of the City of Edmonds for its failure and negligence related to the issuance of the permit related to the rockery, and failure to inspect the rockery and sanitation sewers. I have been advised by Mr. Tanaka that unless the Emerald Home Owners Association or the specific property owners, who are likely to be effected, are willing to provide financial backing and participate in legal action against Mr. and Mrs. Lockyer, it is unlikely that any specific action will be taken in this matter. Given this position we request that you discuss this matter with your insurance carrier to insure that the City has adequate coverage in the event that the rockery colapses and people and property are substantially hurt. It is the position of the Emerald Hills Home Owners Association that in no way have they caused or contributed to the hazard and nuisance which exists, and that they are not responsible for enforcing the building and code provisions of the Edmonds City ordinances with respect to other citizens. Therefore, it is our belief that it is the duty and responsibility of the City of Edmonds to bear the burden of the costs of litigation aand legal action in requiring the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Lockyer to correct the hazardous conditions they are causing, and conform to the building code requirements of the City of Edmonds. Harold Reeves Wayne Tanaka March 9, 1984 Page three In the event that the City of Edmonds fails to take any immediate action to correct this hazardous and dangerous situation and to protect the adjacent property owners, and it becomes necessary for the Emerald Hills Home Owners Association to bring legal action against the offending property owners, we will be forced to include the City of Edmonds as a party/defendant on the basis of the negligence as outlined above. Further, if the rockery does cave in and there is a lawsuit resulting for damages as a result thereof, it goes without saying ,that the City of Edmonds will be included in a suit for damages. I find it difficult to understand why the City of Edmonds would ignore the situation which has been specifically brought to their attention when this is a matter that could have been avoided had the City initially made the appropriate inspections. I would appreciate it if each of you would contact me as soon as you are conveniently able and advise me of what positon and action the City of Edmonds intends to take at this time with respect to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at your conveince. Very truly yours, HENDRICKS, SEVENICH AND SEGELBAUM Julie A. Sevenich JAS/em cc: Frank Vitcovich Mr. and Mrs. Robert Lockyer the staff determination. The appeal process determination will either uphold the staff determination or the operator of the day-care will be required to seek a home occupations permit. Mr. Bohan said the issue is not whether Edmonds needs day- care centers, but whether the day -cares belong in adjacent property backyards. There should be designated areas that are not conflicting with adjacent residences. He said most of the people present testifying for the day care center do not live close to the house. Opposition to the day-care is from property owners immediately adjacent to the day care. Councilmember Dwyer interrupted to say that Mr. Bohan was now trying to litigate an issue not now before the Council. Mr. Bohan asked that his name be placed on the list for notification when a hearing is scheduled. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, requested that the hearing on Sailor's Restaurant sign remain on the April 3 agenda. It is a new sign in a BC zone and the material coming to the Council from .the Planning Board will have.no bearing on the issue. Council President Jaech noted that the Council had agreed at their last meeting that the hearings would be continued if appellants concurred. City Clerk Irene Varney Moran explained that the items in question would remain on the April 3 agenda, otherwise notices and publications would have to be posted. Therefore, the April 3 agenda remains the same, but people concerned were notified there was a possibility that the hearings might be continued. Mayor Naughten assured Ms. Shippen that -the hearing in question would remain on the April 3 agenda. Tena.Carver, 138 Highland Drive, stated there has been a drainage problem on their property since 1980. She said the property behind and above them had built a massive rockery, 20-25' high behind which a swimming pool had been installed. Ms. Carver said she had taken the matter up with Mr. Adams and Mr. Reeves many times over the past years. She said a building permit was never obtained for construction of the rockery. She indicated that they are very frightened that the rockery is not safe. She said Mr. Reeves had told her that he could not get anything from the people involved, either. The property is owned by Dr. Robert Lockyear, located at 127 Skyline Drive. During construction of the pool and rockery, the drainage had been dismantled from the home; there was a rainstorm and the Carvers had received the full drainage from that property.' The resulting damage to their property included water in the basement, loss of ground cover, and a crack in a 10" reinforced concrete 60' wall. When confronted the next morning, the Lockyears said the water and damage was the Carvers' problem: She said the Lockyear storm sewer is hooked into the regular sewer. She said she had tried repeatedly to talk with Mr. Tanaka. Last evening, the Carvers' had been contacted by the President of their Homeowners' Association, advis- ing them there is a leak in the swimming pool which was releasing about 100 gallons a day. She said, when the swimming pool collapses, there will be a lot of property damage and possibly lives lost. She would like to have the water drained immediately if there is any in the pool now. Mayor Naughten advised Ms. Carver that the City is working on the problem and would have information for her if she would call him tomorrow. HEARING ON PROPOSED TRAFFIC REVISION FOR PUGET DR. & OLYMPIC AVE. City Engineer Jim Adams introduced Traffic Engineer Dale Schroeder, who presented the three intersection alternates. Mr. Schroeder explained the decision making process employed in proposing the three alternates to be presented. Graphics of accidents occuring at the intersections of Olympic View Drive and Olympic Avenue and those occurring at Olympic Avenue and Puget Drive were displayed. After determining that the predominant accident is southbound Olympic View Drive left turning vehicles, he mentioned several characteristics that are contributing to the problem: 1. the oblique angle of the turn, 2. there is no protected left turn area. There are two predominant accidents at the intersection of Olympic Avenue and Puget Drive, the westbound Puget traffic turning right onto Olympic Avenue being rear -ended caused in part by the higher speed limit on Puget.Drive and the tight turning radius; the other is the right angle accident involving southbound Olympic Avenue traffic with the eastbound Puget Drive traffic, caused by the upgrade on Olympic Avenue and some perceived sight restrictions at the intersection. Councilmember Kasper interjected the fact that all accidents recorded on the presentation graphs had occurred prior to that road's being rebuilt. Mr. Schroeder said the current year's data was not available when the diagrams were done. Mr. Schroeder displayed the three alternates and gave a detailed explanation .of each. There was discussion between the Council and Mr. Schroeder to clarify the information presented. At the conclusion of the presentation, Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing. EDMONDS CITY'COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 - March 20, 1984 CITY OF E13MONDS 250 - 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER May 22, 1984 Mark Eames Ogden, Ogden and Murphy 2300 Westin Building STREET' 2001 - 6th Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Dear Mark: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR FILE SUBJECT: EDMONDS VS. LOCKYER --'(-'1'27 `$KYL�INE After the site inspection and our discussion, the following are my opinions of the rockery and swimming pool: There are opposing views within the engineering profession regarding the ability to design a rockery structural retaining wall. About one-half of the engineers that I know feel that rockery should be considered only as a cosmetic feature. The structural integrity of a rockery wall is dependent upon many factors, to include, but not limited to: 1. The bearing capacity of the underlying soil. 2. The depth of bedding. 3. The strength of the rock. 4. The slope of the rockery. 5. The size of the rocks. 6. The keying of the rocks. 7. Material behind the rockery. B. Ground water. 9. Workmanship. From our cursory inspection, I am concerned about: 1) The depth of the bedding. It appears that there may not be sufficient resistance by the soil in front of the first row of rocks to keep them from kicking out. 2) The strength of the rock. Some of the rocks are fractured. 3) The keying of the rocks. There appeared to be a minimum of surface contact between the rocks. • • Mark Eames May 22, 1984 Page 2 4) Material behind the rockery. The contractor stated that he had backfilled between the fine graded, existing embankment and the rockery with a coarse, crushed rock. This will allow the fine materials to migrate and form voids. This is a complete violation of good engineering practice. 5) Ground water. This is an unknown quantity, but if a leak developed in the swimming pool, it could be devastating. 6) Workmanship. I have seen very few projects where there was evidence of poorer workmanship. a. The swimming pool is approximately one foot off level. Dr. Lockyer stated that it was constructed that way. If so, this validates my premise of poor workmanship. We have no way to determine that it did not settle. b. The majority of the concrete slabs have pro- nounced differential settlement. This is the result of either poor compaction or voids forming, the result of poor workmanship. c. The rockery contractor stated that he had built only one rockery similar to this that had failed. He claimed that the failure was due to him following the direction of his client. I contend that a journeyman or professional does not follow the advice of a layman when he knows it is wrong. My opinion is biased, due to the possible damage which would be caused down slope in the event of a failure. I believe an' added factor of safety is required in this instance. In my opinion the water should be immediately drained from the swimming pool until this matter is settled. In my opinion, a dramatic failure could result from a leak in the pool, which would saturate the soil, reducing the bearing capacity and cause the rockery to fail; or differential settlement in the pool area, which is occurring now, causing stress on the bottom of the pool, which would result in a fracture. In my opinion, the latter is the most likely. Mark Eames May 22, 1984 Page 3 I recommend that we advise Dr. Lockyer that he should secure the services of a recognized expert geotechnical engineer, who -is acceptable to the City, and have the engineer submit a recommendation to us for review. Sincerely, Q4kEAS E. ADAMS, P.E. y Engineer JEA/st CITY OF EDMONDS. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WORK START NUMBER SUBJECT NAME DATE AND TIME j City of Edmonds vs.. Lockyer, :-448 SUMMARY Check „attached affidavit for changes., Sign.and, have notarized. Return to.Mark-Eames,-City.Attorney, .v FRO J f 42,0 8 TO TO TO TO TOJ. Adams DA7E - DATE DATE DATE DATE • CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525 CITY ATTORNEY Jim Adams City Engineer Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Jim: May 10, 1984 STREET FILE Re: Edmonds v. Lockyer LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR I attempted to get in touch with you on Wednesday morning to discuss the engineering requirement for the Lockyer retaining rockery for the purposes of settlement negotiations. Apparently you are out of town for several days. Please contact me as soon as you return so that we may develop our position in these negotiations. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF E CITY ATORNEY Mark A. Eames MAE:jt z CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525 CITY ATTORNEY April 20, 1984 Mr. Jim Adams City Engineer Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, WA 98020 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR RECEIVED APR 2 31984 ENGINEERING Re: City of Edmonds v. Lockyer Dear Jim: Enclosed is a proposed affidavit for your signature in connection with the above referenced matter. Please carefully review this affidavit and make any changes that you feel are necessary. If only minor changes are necessary, please make them in your handwriting and place your initials in the margin next to the corrections. If the changes are substantial, please contact me or Jane Tabaka, my secretary, and indicate what changes should be made. Please sign the affidavit and have your signature notarized. If the affidavit is going to be substantially changed, however the signature page is alright, please detach the signature page, sign that and have that notarized and then just send the signature page to me and I will have the revised portions of the affidavit attached to your signature page. If you have any questions regarding this affidavit please give me a call. It is very important that I have these affidavits by Tuesday morning at the latest. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Mark A. Eames MAE:jt Enclosure • • 2 3 Cm 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITY OF EDMONDS, Washington, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT L. LOCKYER and JANE DOE LOCKYER, his wife, Defendants. STATE OF WASHINGTON NO. 84-2-01289-5 AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES E. ADAMS, CITY ENGINEER ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I, JAMES E. ADAMS, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and state: 1. That I am the City Engineer for the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "City"), and that the facts and opinions contained in this affidavit are based upon my personal knowledge, information, belief and expertise. 2. That I have been the City Engineer of the City of Edmonds since August, 1979. I am licensed by the State of Washington as a civil engineer and I have 26 years of experience in this profession. Part of my responsibility as City Engineer for the City of Edmonds is to review and ensure that all construction commenced within the City of Edmonds is completed in LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN, OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING Adams - 1 Affidavit of James E. 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622-2991 r conformance with the structural standards for such constructions 2 adopted by the ordinances of the City of Edmonds. 3 3. That I have inspected the rockery located on the 4 defendant's property at 127 Skyline Drive and have reviewed the 5 report of the City's consulting engineer, Dale Hemphill, as well 6 as the documents submitted by the defendant, or the defendant's 7 agents, in connection with the issuance of Building Permit No. 8 780577 and that based upon my training and experience, it is my 9 opinion that the adequacy and safety of the rockery as currently. 10 built is unknown and has a potential for causing substantial 11 personal injury and property damage. Before I could approve any 12 rockery or any other restraining structure constructed for the 13 purpose of supporting the swimming pool and surrounding fill 14 material, I would require a detailed engineering study by a regis- 15 tered engineer certifying that the structure as it exists or as 16 modified is adequate for the intended purposes. 17 4. That the subject rockery and swimming pool are located STEEP 18 on a '5-dog ier slope, above a number of single family residences 19 in the Emerald Hills development. In my opinion, if the rockery 20 and swimming pool were to fail three to six houses would be 21 threatened with damage in which an approximate total of sixteen 22 people live. If the swimming pool were drained the magnitude of 23 any resulting damage would be significantly reduced. 24 5. That it is my further opinion that given the low safety 25 factor that currently exists for the subject rockery and the 26 potential for personal injury and property damage, and the fact LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY Affidavit of James E . Adams - 2 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 4206) 622-2991 0 . 0 2 3 4 5 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that the likelihood of a failure of the rockery is greatly increased if the soils behind the rockery become saturated with water, as could happen from a leak of the defendant's swimming pool, that such swimming pool should be drained until the necessary engineering certifications are provided. 6. That the defendant should drain his swimming pool into the City's sanitary sewer system, and not the storm sewer system, because the chlorine in the pool water would be detrimental to the environment if released into the storm sewer system. MES E. ADAMS SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of 1984. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Affidavit of James E. Adams - 3 LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622-2991 • • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 III 25 26 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITY OF EDMONDS, Washington, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT L. LOCKYER and JANE DOE LOCKYER, his wife, Defendants. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) NO. 84-2-01289-5 AFFIDAVIT OF DALE HEMPHILL, CITY'S CONSULTING ENGINEER I, DALE HEMPHILL, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath, depose and say: 1. That I am a registered engineer with the State of Washington, Registration No. 14777, and that the facts and opinions contained in this affidavit and exhibits, are based upon my personal knowledge, information, belief and training. My training and experience is set forth in detail in my resume attached hereto as Exhibit A. . 2. That this affidavit is submitted in support of the City of Edmonds application before this court for a preliminary injunction to require that Dr. and Mrs. Robert Lockyer, defendants in this action, drain their swimming pool located behind the Affidavit of Dale Hemphill - 1 LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622-2991 1 2 3 4 5 6� 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 residence at 127 Skyline Drive in the City of Edmonds and be restrained from keeping water in the pool during the pendency of this lawsuit. 3. That I was retained by the City of Edmonds on or about July of 1982 to inspect and study the adequacy of a certain rockery on the defendant's property behind which is located a swimming pool. 4. That on September 26, 1982, I accompanied Mr. Hal Reeves, the City of Edmonds Building Official, to the defendant's property and conducted an inspection of the existing rockery. 5. That the rockery I inspected, was approximately 19 feet high with a thickness that ranged from approximately 4 feet at the base to 2 feet at the top. The rockery appeared to have a 20- degree tilt towards the slope. Furthermore, the rockery had apparently been keyed into the ground, or set in a trench of approximately 6 inches to 12 inches. 6. That after my inspection of the property I prepared a report setting forth my findings and the reasons therefor and submitted that report to the City on September 25, 1982. A true and correct copy of that report is attached to this affidavit and marked as Exhibit B. 7. That it was my conclusion as stated in my report that: "Although there is no evidence of any failure, the studies indicate that the rockery exists with a low safety factor, and that any change in the drainage conditions could cause the rockery to fail by sliding, overturning or kicking out at the base. Affidavit of Dale Hemphill - 2 LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622-2991 1 2 3 4 5 611 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The rockery was not engineered and inspected by qualified persons, and no records exist of the construction materials and methods, and a failure of the rockery could endanger lives and could cause significant property damage, therefore, HEMPHILL recommends that further studies be conducted to determine the true soil and drainage conditions and that the safety of the rockery be reevaluated." 8. That on October 24, 1983, I was deposed by defendant's attorney, Mr. Lee R. McNair, in the lawsuit encaptioned Robert L. Lockyer v. Fox Pool Corporation, King County Cause No. 82-2- 00493-6 at which time I was extensively questioned regarding the substance of my engineering study of the rockery and its safety. At the same time I was allowed to examine a report prepared by the geotechnical engineering firm of Rittenhouse Zeman & Associates, prepared by Mr. Tom Beckey and which concerned the adequacy of the same rockery. That report was consistent with my own findings that the rockery, as constructed, had a low safety factor. DALE HEMPHILL SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of , 1984. Affidavit of Dale Hemphill - 3 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622-2991 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITY OF EDMONDS, Washington, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, VS. ROBERT L. LOCKYER and JANE DOE LOCKYER, his wife, Defendants. STATE OF WASHINGTON NO. 84-2-01289-5 AFFIDAVIT OF HAL REEVES, CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING OFFICIAL ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, HAL REEVES, of lawful age, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and say: 1. That I am the duly appointed Building Official for the City of Edmonds, hereinafter "City", and that the facts contained in this affidavit are based upon my personal knowledge, informa- tion and belief. 2. That this affidavit is submitted in support of the City's application before this court to preliminarily enjoin the defendant, Dr. Robert Lockyer, from maintaining water in his swimming pool located at his residence of 127 Skyline Drive in the City of Edmonds. Affidavit of Hal Reeves - 1 LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622-2991 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8i 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. That I have been employed by the City, first as a Building Inspector since February, 1979, then as Building Official since May, 1980. That the City, through its adoption of the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code requires that a building permit be issued prior to construction of any swimming pool and associated structures such as a rockery. 4. That the City Building Department records, of which I am the custodian indicate that on October 6, 1978, a building permit was issued by the City of Edmonds for the construction of a swimming pool on the property owned by the defendant. That permit was issued on the basis of a site plan showing the location of the swimming pool and two low, non-structural rockeries to be located between the swimming pool and the west property line of the defen- dant's property. The records further indicate that, consistent with City procedure, such plans were submitted to the City's engineering department and approved on August 8, 1978. A true and correct copy of Permit No. 780577 and accompanying site plan is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A. 5. That on January 22, 1979, in response to a complaint received from a neighbor, I visited the defendant's property and found that a rockery had, been constructed and completed without any inspection by the City as required by the Uniform Building Code and that the rockery as constructed did not conform to the approved plans, nor were the approved plans changed with the approval of the City's Building Department. Affidavit of Hal Reeves - 2 LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622-2991 e 1 6. That instead of constructing two low non-structural 2 rockeries pursuant to the approved plan, the defendants had caused 3 to be erected a 20-foot high rockery with the structural purpose 4 of retaining fill material around the defendant's swimming pool. 5 7. That had the defendants applied to the City for 6 approval of the 20-foot high rockery, as required by City ordi- 7 nance, the City would have required the certification of a regis- 8 tered engineer that such design was adequate for the intended 9 purposes. 10 8. That by letter sent to the defendant by certified mail 11 on February 23, 1981, I informed the defendant that Building 12 Permit No. 780577 had expired, that the rockery had not been con- 13 structed as prescribed by the approved plan and that the defendant 14 must submit as -built drawings of the constructed rockery together 15 with the analysis of a registered engineer certifying the adequacy 16 of the rockery to serve the purpose for which it was constructed. 17 18 9. That on behalf of the City, I retained Dale Hemphill, a 19 consulting engineer, and on July 26, 1982, Mr. Hemphill and I 20 inspected the subject rockery to determine its adequacy. 21 10. That on December 25, 1982, the City received an engi- 22 neering study prepared by Dale Hemphill which indicated that the 23 rockery existed with a low safety factor. 24 11. That on September 30, 1982, I had a telephone conver- 25 sation with Dr. Lockyer at which time he agreed to meet with the 26 City on October 5, 1982 to discuss the Hemphill rockery study. LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING Affidavit of Hal Reeves - 3 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 99121 (206) 622.2991 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Dr. Lockyer failed to attend the October 5, 1982 meeting or to otherwise contact the Building Department regarding his intention to comply with the City's requirements. 12. That it is my opinion based upon inspections of the swimming pool and rockery site, upon the report of the City's consulting engineer and upon my experience as a building official, that the rockery constructed on the defendant's property poses a hazard to public health and safety and that until the rockery's adequacy can be fully determined by a registered engineer, or is modified to be adequate, that the swimming pool should be drained so that there is no danger of leakage into the fill material behind the rockery and therefore a reduced danger that the rockery will fail. HAL REEVES SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 1984. Affidavit of Hal Reeves - 4 day of NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN. OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622-2991 TREASURER'S RECEIPT Edmonds, Washington N9 6023 Date \ ' 't"All !��it/ "I�_`i V V Cash Check (Copy Receipt) I (Clerk's Date Stamp) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING ROBERT L. LOCKYER, et ux., STq�e� �- FICE Plaintiff s No. 82-2-00493-6 • vs. FOX POOL CORPORATION, et al., Subpoena Duces Tecum Defendant s The State of Washington to JAMES E. ADAMS, P.E, City Engineer for Greeting: the City of Edmonds. You are hereby required to appear in the court room of the Superior Court of the State of Washington FY. !t 2 r.....4.. o f KTN7G , +lx.. �. 1 House 4 3`�d u. J__t nes ��- SC-4--ti c + =: r + - a'a aiat- �.ullaa aaviSuE da �" on the lst day of _February , 19 84, at 9 : 30 o'clock in the morning , then and there to give evidence in a certain cause wherein_ Robert L. Lockyer and Susanne K. Lockyer are -,Plaintiffs and- Fox Pool Corp., Nor -Cal Pacific, Inc. and G. Parks are , Defendants and you are further directed and commanded to bring with you the followigg papers and documents now in .your possession or under your control, viz: All City of Edmonds, Building Department records relating to swimming„pool and rockery installation at home of Robert L. Lockyer at,127`Skylne';:Dr., Edmonds. Building Permit No. 790069. 0 and to remain in attendance on said Court until discharged, and HEREIN FAIL NOT at YOUR PERIL. Witness_. mY hand this 2 3rd day of January, 19 84 UGC �S • LEE R. McNAIR Attorney of Record for lain i f f a 328 Fairview Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98109 Phone (206) 623-6042 N r (Copy Receipt) I (Clerk's Date Stamp) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ROBERT L. LOCKYER, et ux., Plaintiff S vs. FOX POOL CORPORATION, et al., Defendant s KING No. 82-2-00493-6 Subpoena Duces Tecum The State of Washington to HAROLD REEVES, Building Official for the Greeting: CITY OF EDMONDS You are, hereby required to appear in the court room of the Superior C urrtt of the State osj Washington c.. I.- n_- . trlwT� �--,1 S �?2?eS t �6�.a 4-1 r aw ►t.c. � VUAILY of 1• NG al the CUM'[ Clouse at_ - • � -- on the. 1st day of February , 19, at 9 : 30 o'clock in the morning, then and there to ive evidence in a certain cause wherein Robert L. Lockyer an Susanne K. Lockyer , Plaintiff s and Fox Pool Corporation, Nor -Cal Pacific and G. Parks are Defendant .s and you are further directed and commanded to bring with you the following papers and documents now in .your possession or under your control, viz: All City of Edmonds Building Department records relating to swimming pool and rockery installation at home of Robert L. Lockyer at 127 Skyline Dr., Edmonds. Building Permit No. 790069. and to remain in attendance on said Court until discharged, and HEREIN FAIL NOT at YOUR PERIL. Witness_ my hand this 23rd day of Januar , 19 84 R. McNAIR Attorney of Record for Plaintiffs. 328 Fairview Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 623-6042 Phone......................................................................-..-.- so N CITY OF EDMONDS HARVE H. HARRISON V MAYOR CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January 6, 1983 Mr. Lee R. McNair Lee R. McNair and Associates, Inc., P.S. 328 Fairview Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98109 Dear Mr. McNair: SUBJECT: 127 SKYLINE DRIVE, EDMONDS Regarding your December 27, 1982 letter to City Engineer Jim Adams, the following items must be completed in order to bring the Lockyer swimming pool installation and rock retaining wall into compliance with City Codes: 1. Provide documentation of approval of the pool electrical service from the State Electrical Inspector. 2. Provide self closers. and self latches for all fence gates leading to the pool area per City of Edmonds Code Section 19.55.030. 3. Provide a cross connection control device on the hose bib serving the pool per 1976 UPC Section 1003. 4. Provide storm water drainage from the pool area per City of Edmonds Code Section 18.30. 5. The rock retaining wall was constructed without proper Building Department authorization:, A study done for the City by Dal-e Hemphill; consulting engineer indicates that "the rockery exists with a low safety factor, and that any change in the drainage conditions could cause the rockery to fail by sliding, overturning, or kicking out at the. base". The City is therefore requiring that further studies be conducted by a licensed, professional engineer to determine the true soil and drainage conditions, and that the safety of the rockery be re-evaluated. 1976 UBC, Section'301 and 2308 (B). If there are any questions, please contact the Building Division. HR/cn 4Qtire�- Harold Reeves, Building Offi-cial 6016 204th SW richa rd A N ,� �, �g83 ceda, va"ey office ark ing king, — lynnwood, washington 98036 architect January 14, 1983 (206) 771-4070 City of Edmonds Re: Site drainage for lot #53 Emerald Hills Building Department Existing residence of Dr. R. Lockyer att'n. Mr. H. Reeves Building official Dear Mr. Reeves: The enclosed site drainage proposal is submitted primarily to solve the water run-off .from lot #54. The proposal is to col- lect roof and exterior concrete deck water run-off into down spouts that already exist and deck drains that already exist and drain them into the 12" storm line along Main Street. The sizes of the drain lines as indicated on the proposal draw- ing are in excess of those required for lot #54 only. The in- creased sizes will allow the addition of both lots #53 & #55 in to the system should the owners of those two adjoining lots de- cide to share in the use and the cost of this proposed system. Resolution of these adjoining lots #53 & #55 individual site drainage problems will be handled in the .future when such de- cisions become necessary due to future building. The estimated cost of this system is approximately $2,750.00, two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars. Your earliest reply to this proposal will be greatly appreciated so that we may continue with our plans. I believe, in the final analysis of costs, appearance and maintenance to be a better overall system than that of detention ponding, and will allow the residents of this area to use the storm facility as intended. Sincerely, R.T.King Ow�,to 1'CGu,)!12 1/1 91.03 0 r m s S 7R 4: Cr 6' �v6 42 ' 4157'U6 -41 C.O. !1 4,0S 5G Ian 54 r 134.0� 53 i 1 4 T k Emu 1 ¢' ��vEcoPE'n sirE G•O' C.O. 1 ' W r �xi�Tru�, �t6srr�E�vc� cc. �xisrfclG, 2x2 a.5. T'rPtc A L (5) � ` 7ZooF: - 28� s•F m TL 1129 tARCHI EU'T' AEZ%i•f;TC%7 RfCHARD T. Kllti ;ATE OF v:ASlitr;G7G l M N January 4, 1983 MEMO TO: Hal Reeves Building Official FROM: James E. Adams City Engineer SUBJECT: 127 SKYLINE DRIVE Attached is a copy of a letter from Lee McNair, the attorney for Dr. Lockyer. I spoke with Wayne Tanaka. He indicated that if Dr. Lockyer now wishes to make the necessary corrections, that we should work with him. I answered Mr. McNair's letter regarding the storm drains. A copy of my letter is attached. I have no comments regarding the structures. �nA JEA/st Attachments , r M HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR 200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER January 4, 1983 Mr. Lee R. McNair Lee R. McNair and Associates, Inc.,P.S. 328 Fairview Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 Dear Mr. McNair: SUBJECT: 127 SKYLINE DRIVE I received your letter°dated December 27, 1982. The accep- tance or rejection of structures, swimming pool, and rockery is the responsibility of our Building Official. I am forwarding your letter to him to answer those questions. I am responsible for the storm and sanitary sewers. A copy of my letter to Dr. Lockyer, dated December 8, 1981, is attached. This letter is self-explanatory. It is imperative that the storm drains be disconnected from the sanitary sewer as soon as possible, as our sewage treatment plant has recently been overflowing. If you have any questions regarding an acceptable design for the storm sewer, please have your engineer contact either me or Jerry Hauth at 771-3202. JEA/st Attachment cc: City Attorney Building Official Sincerely, JAMES E. ADAMS, P.E. City Engineer ATTORNEYS AT LAW LEE R. MCNAIR 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH RECEIVED SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 DEC(208) 523-6042 EC 2 9 1982 December 27, 1982 Dir. Of Puhiir, Works Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. City Engineer City of Edmonds 200 Dayton Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: 127 Skyline Drive Dear Mr. Adams: As you know, I represent Dr. Robert Lockyer and his wife regarding issues raised by the City of Edmonds regarding the Lockyer home at the above address. In regard to the sewer connection, our architect Richard King will be submitting a plan to you in the near future for connecting the drains to the storm sewer system. Several months ago you raised issues regarding the rockery and swimming pool construction. As you know, we are involved in liti- gation with the contractor, Mr. Gil Parks, who I believe was one of your former city building inspectors. In view of the issues you have raised, we at this time request you advise me formally in writing as to precisely and specifically what deficiencies that the City of Edmonds contends exist in regard to my clients' property and all construction which has been done thereon. We must know exactly in what way you believe the property fails to comply with code, if any. We cant really take up any of these issues, if they exist, unless we have a written specification which we can take up with our architect and/or other experts. We understand that you have obtained a soil report and would appreciate having a copy of that report. My clients desire their property to be in compliance with code but also need to have specifications so that we can determine all potential expense which may be involved if the property is not presently in compliance with code. We will look forward to hearing from you at an early date. Very truly ,truly yours, LEE R . MPAI LRM/dm cc: Dr. Robert Lockyer Richard King C11RON COPY CITtiWED MUNDS .''�•4 Civic Center • Edmonds, Washington 98020 Telephone (206) 775-2525 ��— 011ice of the City Engineer December 8, 1981 Mr. Robert Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear !Mr.,Lockyer: SUBJECT: SE�-ER CONNECTION/127 Skyline' Drive I was informed that the storm drains on your propezty are connected to the sanitary sewer. This is a'vio-' lation of Section 18.10.020 of the Edmonds City Code,' Prior to taking; any corrective action, please submit a plan for my approval. If you believe that your drains are not connected to the sanitary sewer, please call and I will meet with you, at your convenience, to r1utual.l,j !sake an inspection. If I can be of any assistance, or if you have any ques- tions retarding the matter, p1e.1se call me at 771-:3202, Extension 279. Sincerely, JAME'S E . AW.!$ , P , E , Cj_�y Engineer JEA/ j .f CC: City Attorney Building Official --14'sKO/LIME 'n(�, j 6016 204th SW richard 1983 eeda. va"erofficc�ark �,' JAN 1 � ing king, architect lynnwood, washington 98036 January 14, 1983 (206)771-40.70 City of Edmonds Re-.: Site drainage for lot #53 Emerald Hills Building Department Existing residence of Dr. R. Lockyer att'n. Mr. H. Reeves ,4 Building official Dear Mr. Reeves: The enclosed site drainage proposal is submitted primarily to solve the water run-off from lot #54. The proposal is to col- lect roof and exterior concrete deck water run-off into down spouts that already exist and deck drains that already exist and drain them into the 12" storm line along Main Street. The sizes of the drain lines as indicated on the proposal draw- ing are in excess of those required for lot #54 only. The in- creased sizes will allow the addition of both lots #53 & #55 in to the system should the owners of those two adjoining lots de- cide to share in the use and the cost of this proposed system. Resolution of these adjoining lots #53 & #55 individual site drainage problems will be handled in the future when such de- cisions become necessary due to future building. The estimated cost of this system is approximately $2,750.00, two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars. Your earliest reply to this proposal will be greatly appreciated so that we may continue with our plans. I believe, in the final analysis _of costs, appearance and maintenance to be.a'better overall system than that of detention ponding, and will allow the residents of this area to use the storm facility as intended. Sincerely, R.T.King STREL"-f FILE 601 • • .z 1 S �,7-47v�,48 41 c, o, 'P.a-r*4 W.4 le Zo'. a - _ 114��• 5 S 1 ac - 134.0� `f` l.Sc/DEt/EC�oPEA S/TE ff "�xi�rnvG, TZEsc�E�icE c.o. �xlsrl-J4 zXz`" a.5. [V n�6+pEalcE 7"�Yc L (5) i Roo;: - 2800 s•F. 3S' Blco • �LoIS . 53 54 5�0 . EAo(r:RAL.D Atli. LS . -MWO44DVA. /416 5 TL 112, n�&iS7�t?FD ARCtI TtL 1 RC MD T. KIT Ssa.iE CF 0 0 MEMO TO: Hal Reeves Building Official FROM: James E. Adams City Engineer SUBJECT: 127 SKYLINE DRIVE STREET FILE January 4, 1983 Attached is a copy of a letter from Lee McNair, the attorney for Dr. Lockyer. I spoke with Wayne Tanaka. He indicated that if Dr. Lockyer now wishes to make the necessary corrections, that we should work with him. I answered Mr. McNair's letter regarding the storm drains. A copy of my letter is attached. I have no comments regarding the structures. JEA/st Attachments ':: -R on arch Dt CITY OF EDMONDS 200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER January 4, 1983 HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR Mr. Lee R. McNair Lee R. McNair and Associates, Inc., P.S. STREET FILE 328 Fairview Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 Dear Mr. McNair: SUBJECT: 127 SKYLINE DRIVE I received your letter dated December 27, 1982. The accep- tance or rejection of structures, swimming pool, and rockery is the responsibility of our Building Official. I am forwarding your letter to him to answer those questions. I am responsible for the storm and sanitary sewers. A copy of my letter to Dr. Lockyer, dated December 8, 1981, is attached. This letter is self-explanatory. It is imperative that the storm drains be disconnected from the sanitary sewer as soon as possible,.as our sewage treatment plant has recently been overflowing. I.f you have any questions regarding an acceptable design for the storm sewer, please have your engineer contact either me or Jerry Hauth at 771-3202. Sincerely, J S E. ADAMS, P.E. City Engineer JEA/st Attachment cc: City Attorney Building Official C � ��/Z 9_� - R�bnda.Mgrch Dt CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORK.` ARTMENT but%JECT NAME WORK START NUMBER Lee R. M Nair DATE AND TIME Assoc. SUMMARY Loa',yer resident c:t 127 Skyline Dr. Need in c). un r_ocl.�Zy E-1-1d SV7JX.'H linC yX)ol coilStruction. Needs to know MACTLY in w1nat way you believe the pruEx:rty fails to coil -ply with tae city cc)0,e. FROM DATE ml 12/2"/82 TO TO TO TO TO DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE t e'er of so r 1 jc -12 LEE R. MCNAiR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH S EATTLE, WASMIN GTON 98109 (206) 623-6042 December 27, 1982 Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. City Engineer City of Edmonds 200 Dayton Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: 127 Skyline Drive Dear Mr. Adams: RECEIVED DEC, 2 91992 Dir. Of Public Works As you know, I represent Dr. Robert Lockyer and his wife regarding issues raised by the City of Edmonds regarding the Lockyer home at the above address. In regard to the sewer connection, our architect Richard King will be submitting a plan to you in the near future for connecting the drains to the storm sewer system. Several months ago you raised issues regarding the rockery and swimming pool construction. As you know, we are involved in liti- gation with the contractor, Mr. Gil Parks, who I believe was one of your former city building inspectors. In view of the issues you have raised, we at this time request you advise me formally in writing as to precisely and specifically what deficiencies that the City of Edmonds contends exist in regard to my clients' property and all construction which has been done thereon. We must know exactly in what way you believe the property fails to comply with code, if any. We cant really take up any of these issues, if they exist, unless we have a written specification which we can take up with our architect and/or other experts. We understand that you have obtained a soil report and would appreciate having a copy of that report. My clients desire their property to be in compliance with code but also need to have specifications so that we can determine all potential expense which may be involved if the property is not presently in compliance with code. We will look forward to hearing from you at an early date. Very truly yours, /� LEE R. b4cNAIR LRM/dm cc: Dr. Robert Lockyer Richard King CHRON COPY CITY EDMON®S Civic Center • Edmonds, Washington 98020 Telephone (206) 775-2525 O/tice of the City Engineer December 8, 1981 Mr. Robert Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear TMr. Lockyer: SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION/127 Skyline' Drive I was informed that the storm drains on your nropezty are connected to the sanitary sewer. This i,s-a'vi.o-' lation of Section 18.10.020 of the Edmonds City Code.' Prior to taking; any corrective action, nlease'submit a plan for my approval. If you believe that your drains are not connected to the sanitary sewer, please call and I will meet with you, at your convenience, to mutually make an inspection. If I can be of any assistance, or if you -have any ques- tions ie;arding the matter, please call me at 771.3202, Extension 279. Sincerely, Jn .: E. ADAMS, P,E, City Engineer J EA/ j .f. CC: City Attorney Building Official 40 CITY OF EOMONDS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 775.2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT as October 19, 1982 Mr. Frank Vitcovich, President Emerald Hills Homeowner's Association 236 12th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: ROBERT LOCKYER @ 127 SKYLINE DRIVE HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR Regarding your October 18, 1982 letter, the matter of Dr. Lockyer's storm drains and rockery placement has been referred to the City Attorney on October 7, 1982 and Ihave no further information to report at this time. Harold Reeves Building Official HR/cn Kyt 24 5 zl. 4" pit /��.•: Tm $� p lee 4 K aG /f" i�e.�!Q lt�ioa9� Ae�tr-!%Q�l�c�•�,6C'�'�.��is'° �'�i'',Sec.t�oc,Pew ce 'Z✓i� . ee-t-le%t / I?or 1-4 o 4 Fevc e dQ gre=t +wn* 4L47'�t . G¢i�crally Qvell cmHsr*oe<e- -e.Q eY44 u//t4 570 02e- t.Qram. Rocks bra c -tui4d el /17/e . B u z` ,keyge-oe 72�$ #o/oC AV PZA4-4rl* 061� Secflojfs arp4c @ pr4ese-4`. 5u 6 j Q C-t-- rz> f e/1od re- � / - ye-ce? Af q.'*4M�gWe-e l'e✓R'"�� CITY OF EDMONDS 200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Mr. Lee R. McNair Attorney at Law 328 Fairview Ave. N.. Seattle, Wa. 98109 Dear Mr. McNair: HARVE r.HARRISON �! MAYOR o April 20, 1982 FILE SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION 127 SKYLINE DRIVE Attached is a copy of your letter dated January 15, 1982 requesting a ninety -day deferral of the re- quirement to disconnect the storm drains from the sanitary sewer. I agreed with your request. The ninety days have now passed, and I have not heard from you. Please submit your plan to make the required cor- rection to the sewer system by April 26, 1982. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call me at 771-3202. Sincerely, J S. E. I AMS, P.E. Ci y Engineer JEA/st Attachment Rfo da Ma ch Dt _2� 9�. lin,, 9d RECEIVED ATTORNEYS AT LAW lCC R. MCNAIR 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH JAN 181982 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (200) 023-0042 . Dir. Of Public Works January 15, 1982 Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. City Engineer City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 RE:- Sewer Connection/127 Skyline Drive --Robert Lockyer Dear Mr. Adams: I represent Robert Lockyer who has given me your December 8, 1981 letter regarding the above matter. My client is aware of a problem with the connection of the storm drains at his property. However, a complicating factor relating to such problem is the fact that it arises out of the many other related problems from the incompetent contractor who installed his swimming pool and related facilities. Unfortunately, Gilbert Parks was the source of a host of problems for both Dr. Lockyer and his neighbor Ron Bailie, and on many occasions both I and the architect have pondered how in the world Mr. Parks was even issued a permit in view of his grossly inadequate drawings. In any event, we have just commenced a lawsuit against Mr. Parks and various suppliers relating to the problem and the entire swimming pool project. I have not even received appearances from attorneys for the various parties as yet but would expect to have them coming in within the next three weeks. After they appear in the case, I am sure that the other attorneys will want to have their experts examine the various components of damage which we are claiming and the drainage problem is one of the items of damage. We are aware that this needs correction and my client is perfectly willing to have the drains properly connected, but on the other hand we are very reluctant to correct the problem until the defendants attorneys in the lawsuit have had a reason- able length of time in which to assess and verify our alleged claims including the drain connections. In view of this we would request that this problem and its' solution be deferred for about 90 days to provide ample verification and inspection time for the defendants in this suit. when this has been accomp- lished it would then be appropriate for you and my client to get together and agree upon a solution to the problem. If you would prefer, my client would certainly be happy to get together with ((( Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. January 15, 1982 Page 2 you and try to arrive at an agreed solution to the problem at any time provided that we can delay making the changes until the opponents have examined it. Whichever procedure you prefer is acceptable to us and I will look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, i V. LEE R. McNAIR LRM/dm cc: Robert Lockyer a/%Lri�/Y,air- �eS4�ae�ecir,�eo e�`�nri., �eP� LEE R. McNAIR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 623-6042 April 29, 1982 Mr. James E. Adams, City Engineer City of Edmonds 200 Dayton Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Sewer Dear Mr. Adams. P.E. Connection - .;12„7 Skyline .Dr � 1 � ft ✓✓ RECEI V L. APR 3 U 1982 Dir. Of Public Works Thank you for your April 20th, 1982 letter and for your patience in the above matter. I apologize for not keeping you more currently informed. However, the present status of the situation is that only about two weeks ago I receive the Appearances from all of the defendants in the suit we are pursuing. It took about six weeks longer than we expected to serve Fox Pool Corporation located in Pennsylvania. I will write counsel for all other parties today and advise them that you are requiring early attention to this matter. I will give them a deadline of June lst, 1982 by which to have their experts observe the drain conditions prior to changing them. In the meantime, I am also requesting that my client Robert Lockyer consult with a professional and have prepared a recommended solution to the problem. By copy of this letter I will ask him to do this promptly and ask that he or his consultant be in contact with you in the next two or three weeks. A plan.could be agreed upon perhaps during May with implementation after June lst, 1982. If this is not satisfactory please advise. Very truly yours, LV/6— ER. McNAIR LRM/dm cc: Dr. Robert Lockyer LEE R. McNAIR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 011t (�- �('�� (206) 623-6042 V�trl April 29, 1982 Mr. Sidney R. Snyder, Jr. Ms. Deborah Wright Merrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey Lane, Powell, Moss & Miller 700 Ninth Avenue 3800 Rainier Bank Tower Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. James S. Sorrels Henry & Sorrels 17544 Midvale Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133 Re: Lockyer v. Fox Pool et al. Dear Counselors: Since late 1981 the Edmonds City Engin been seeking to have my clients Dr. & the connection of the storm drains on is my understanding that Gilbert Parks to the sanitary sewer in violation of City Code. In January I was able to h matter for 90 days in order to give ea have your experts inspect and examine any changes being made. eer, James E. Adams, has Mrs. Robert Lockyer change the Lockyer property. It connected the storm drains Section 18.10.020 Edmonds ave Mr. Adams defer the ch of you opportunity to that situation prior to Unfortunately, getting appearances took considerably longer than expected and the 90 days has now expired. I have now heard from Mr. Adams again and he seeks a prompt correction of the problem which involves disconnecting the storm drains from the sanitary sewer and making other drainage arrangements. In view of the already long delay Mr. Adams seeks prompt action. In view of the above, this will serve to advise you that we will fully cooperate with you and your experts for an examination of this situation at the Lockyer property at any mutually convenient time prior to June lst, 1982. That allows a full month which should be ample to make these arrangements. If you have not accomplished this examination by experts of your choice and by yourselves prior to June lst, we shall feel compelled to proceed to implement these changes without further notice to you after June lst, 1982. We will be submitting our plans to the City some time during May 'and expect to implement them in -June, so please advise if you wish an inspection. Very truly yours, LEE R. McNAIR cc; Dr, Robert Lockyer bcc; James Et Adams • CITY OF EDIVIONDS 200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER April 20, 1982 Mr. Lee R. McNair Attorney at Law 328 Fairview Ave. N. Seattle, Wa. 98109 Dear Mr. McNair: HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION - 127 SKYLINE DRIVE Attached is a copy of your letter dated January 15, 1982 requesting a ninety -day deferral of the re- quirement to disconnect the storm drains from the sanitary sewer. I agreed with your request. The ninety days have now passed, and I have not heard from you. Please submit your plan to make the required cor- rection to the sewer system by April 26, 1982. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call me at 771-3202. Sincerely, JAMES. E. ADAMS, P.E. City Engineer JEA/st Attachment Lr CITY OF E®11l1ONDS 200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Mr. Lee R. McNair Attorney at Law 328 Fairview Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 Dear Mr. McNair: January 21, 1982 HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR STRE I'J FILE SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION 127 SKYL`INE' DRI,VE'„ Thank you for your letter dated January 18, 1982.. As I indicated previously, we'are having serious problems with our sewer lines and treatment plant due to unauthorized storm water connections. But, since you are pursuing this matter, I will defer any further action until April 15th, 1982. By then, I will expect your plan to make the necessary corrections. Sincerely, JEA:jky cc: Dan Smith Building Department nda March dt. • • LEE R. McNA1R January 15, 1982 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 623-6042 Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. City Engineer City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEIVED JAN 181982 Dir. Ot Public Works RE: Sewer Connection/127 Skyline Drive — Robert Lockyer Dear Mr. Adams: I represent Robert Lockyer who has given me your December 8, 1981 letter regarding the above matter. My client is aware of a problem with the connection of the storm drains at his property. However, a complicating factor relating to such problem is the fact that it arises out of the many other related problems from the incompetent contractor who installed his swimming pool and related facilities. Unfortunately, Gilbert Parks was the source of a host of problems for both Dr. Lockyer and his neighbor Ron Bailie, and on many occasions both I and the architect have pondered how in the world Mr. Parks was even issued a permit in view of his grossly inadequate drawings. In any event, we have just commenced a lawsuit against Mr. Parks and various suppliers relating to the problem and the entire swimming pool project. I have not even received appearances from attorneys for the various parties as yet but would expect to have them coming in within the next three weeks. After they appear in the case, I am sure that the other attorneys will want to have their experts examine the various components of damage which we are claiming and the drainage problem is one of the items of damage. We are aware that this needs correction and my client is perfectly willing to have the drains properly connected, but on the other hand we are very reluctant to correct the problem until the defendants attorneys in the lawsuit have had a reason- able length of time in which to assess and verify our alleged claims including the drain connections. In view of this we would request that this problem and its' solution be deferred for about 90 days to provide ample verification and inspection time for the defendants in this suit. When this has been accomp- lished it would then be appropriate for you and my client to get together and agree upon a solution to the problem. If you would prefer, my client would certainly be happy to get together with Mr..James E. Adams, P.E. January 15, 1982 Page 2 you and try to arrive at an agreed solution to the problem at any time provided that we can delay making the changes until the opponents have examined it. Whichever procedure you prefer is acceptable to us and I will look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, �[ at! LEE R. McNAIR LRM/dm cc: Robert Lockyer. CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER - F:DMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775.2525 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Mr. Robert Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Lockyer: -CERTIFIED MAIL- ,.Peoembe" il-5, 1982 Z SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION - 127 SKYLINE DRIVE HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR Enclosed is a copy of my letter to you dated December 8, 1981. I Unauthorized storm drain connections to our sanitary sewer system are causing serious problems at our sewage treatment plant. We must take action to eliminate the storm water from the sanitary system. Please submit your plans to make the necessary corrections to me by January 28, 1982. STREET FILE JEA: jky Enclosure RH DA'1MOCRDr Sincerely, JAM S E. P,E. CiySEngineer to CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775.2525 CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO:' Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Office of the City Attorney RE: Robert L. Lockyer DATE: October 13, 1982 HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR The Building Department has brought to the City Attorney'.s Office attention a problem with a Robert L. Lockyer, 127 Skyline Drive. The problem concerns both a rockery that was constructed on Mr. Lockyer's property without proper Building Department authorization and the fact that his storm sewer line is connected into the City's sanitary sewer. Hal Reeves has prepared a' sequence of events which is attached to this memo. The Hemphill Study.mentioned indicates that "The rockery exists with a low safety factor, and that any change in the drainage conditions could cause the rockery to fail by sliding, overturning, or kicking out at the base." The Attorney's Office would request the Council to consider this matter at an executive session. The building official should be present to provide additional information. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Wayne D. Tanaka WDT/nf encl. 0618,1982 City of Edmonds Building Dept. 505 Bell Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Mr. Harold Reeves, Building Official Re: Lot 54, Robert Lockyer and Lot 55, Ron Bailie, Emerald Hills Dear Mr. Reeves: As president of Emerald Hills Home Owners Association, it has been brought to my attention we have problem storm drains and rockery placements. The Home Owners Assn., will have their annual meeting on October 20, 1982. At that time we need a status report on the storm drains and rockeries to present to the members. We are concerned for our homeowners on accessive runoff after a heavy rainfall along with stability of the rockeries. We question if erosion will occurin the future? We would like to know if the storm drains and rockeries have been inspected and approved by the City of Edmonds Building and Engineering Departments? This information is vital to the Home Owners Assn., should damage occur from drainage creating considerable property and or physical damage to lives involved, which could create law suits against both the City of Edmonds and Home Owners Assn. We are awaiting your reply on completed inspections and approval, so the Home Owners Assn., can complete the pathways running between all hillside properties. Sincerely, U �ank Vitcovich President Emerald Hills Home Owners Assn., 236 12th Ave. N. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 ##776-6023 cc: James Adams P.E. Engineering D@pt. • • CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775.2525 CITY ATTORNEY October 13, 1982 Harve Harrison Mayor City of Edmonds Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, Washington 98020 HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR Re: Robert L. Lockyer Dear Mayor Harrison: . Enclosed is a memo which, with your concurrence, I would like distributed to the members of the City Council. If you concur, I would appreciate your having sufficient copies distributed to members of the City Council. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE C(ITTY ATTORNEY Wayne Tanaka WDT/nf encl. cc: Hal Reeves .CITY OF EDMONDS 200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER HARVE H. HARRISON . MAYOR January 21, 1982 !� 'F1!gq Mr. Lee R. McNair ' ) N f- 2 1982 'Attorney at Law 328 Fairview Avenue North C4 OF, WMC?ND.4 Seattle, Washington 98109 y Dear Mr. McNair: SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION 127 SKYLINE DRIVE Thank you for your letter dated January 18, 1982. As.I indicated previously, we'are having serious problems with our sewer lines and treatment plant due to unauthorized storm water connections. But, since you are pursuing this matter, I will defer any further action until April 15th, 1982. By then, I will expect your plan to make the necessary corrections. Sincerely, JAMES E. ADAMS, P.E. City Engineer JEA:jky cc: Dan' Smith Building:�'Department of �t MEMO TO: Wayne Tanaka City Attorney October 7, 1982 FROM: Harold Reeves Building Official SUJBECT: 127 SKYLINE DRIVE; PERMIT #780577 Enclosed is pertinent information on the Lockyer swimming pool/rockery installation (Permit #780577). Please proceed with the necessary legal steps to secure compliance with City and State codes. HR/cn enclosures �6 ZJaynZ -7a,4411 O-AA ' N N Robert L. Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Permit # 780577 8/2/78 Application from Gil W. Park for permit to install swimming pool at Lockyer residence. Plan with application indicated a property line rockery 100' long, but only 4' high, with another 10' high rockery set back from property line. 10/6/78 Permit #780577 approved for construction. 10/6/78 - Building Department records indicate no required progress inspections 1/22/79 on project. 1/16/79 Complaint received that a neighbor below.was concerned about the safety of the rockery. 1/22/79 Site inspection by H. Reeves for the purpose of investigation of the January 16th complaint. Rockery was found to be completed without inspection and that approved plans were changed without Bui'lding Department authorization. 4/25/80 Letter to Lockyer stating that permit #780577 was expired, and he should renew permi't and/or call for inspection. Building Department records indicated no response from Lockyer. 2/23/81 Certified letter to Lockyer requiring as -built plan and engineered certification of rockery. 2/27/81 Inspection of pool installation. Other code violations noted. Lockyer informed in writing of the violations. 4/ /81 Inspection of Lockyer property by H.'Reeves and B.-Franklin. Dye test of storm drains proved that they were connected to the City's sanitary sewer system, in violation of City Codes. 12/8/81 Letter from City Engineer to Lockyer putting him on notice for drainage code violation.. 12/ /81 - Attempts by Building Department to retain a professional engineer for 7/ /82 the purpose of inspection and evaluation of'Lockyer`s rockery. 7/26/82 Tnspection of rockery by H. Reeves and Dale Hemphill, Registered Engineer, 9/25/82 Engineering study by Hemphill completed. 9/30/82 Phone conversation with. Lockyer setting a meeting date of October 5, 1982 to discuss Hemphill. study of rockery. 10/5/82 Lockyer failed to attend meeting or contact Building Department regarding his i'ntentio.ns. 10/7/82 Referred to City Attorney so COM IU"d TY DEVELOP[JENT DEPARTMENT E IEL HON-/VISIT RECORD DATE. j5'4-82 TIME PPA TELEPHONE: : LOCAL PLUMBER CALLED LONG DISTANCE NUMBER CALLED FROH: (OFFICE:) TO: (OFFICE:) VISIT: LOCATION:_ PDUlC,i->HA VkWC7101d Cr-tIGG WITH WHOM:�MI!:�, CA1ZVu--uL SUBJECT: • MiI.S G/�IRV�� '(Z6QVE5TEh �►.��-nnAT1oN ON 't�E Pri�Vln,T. I IJ FoVL nnEb Nc� T NET T e I- /4T��RiJE� 1�A� C�1V�IJ ►1JSTRUcT1oN5 -ro 1112E A Co1J�LTcNC� E1 c1JEEh—y'R 1W, C71e11 �r REPOP-T ON fiAAE r4 kE!'—,/FSuT -rO t�A7F— AQ e:.1J6it4F—erL- Pn $za1J EouNfl Vv+IO v\/AS W►u.1yj6 iU. UMal(�TA-K6 A P 1scr ®F 74IS 1JA1Urs . M(LS CA12yatl - 9s.0 -�rTRTs--b T1k&r SHE vVAS Cooe7IDEP-1116 Ap n t N C� A C L AUSr-- To KEtL Vq t Lt.- 1 t j 5T p ucri tit G VAEi2 �tcto(LOJE`/ To Sue mqe� cryY AMr= Pet250r4AC LY" I r- Tel Rdc cEh- feLt, ACTION REOU I R ED : �I�T1tSl9G �Q12Li� t2 E'iJvtl�FEiL Nltul._l1�IC� -Tp I1751.Di✓ /� (LE Poi•,T O °j 4E c1.00 KEti-AtJp PRncE£o r/./ iTL} IJCC�55 R L-Tln N( TO `5EC.UP-E CD M PLC AVJLE Vv frk Ci-ty CODc.S . CAI --TURE ' TEL /VIS 3/77 a • LEE R. McNAIR January 15, 1982 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 623-5042 Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. City Engineer City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEIVED JAN 1 81982 Dir. Of Public works RE:- Sewer Connection/127 Skyline Drive --Robert Lockyer Dear Mr. Adams: I represent Robert Lockyer who has given me your December 8, 1981 letter regarding the above matter. My client is aware of a problem with the connection of the storm drains at his property. liowever, a complicating factor relating to such problem is the fact that it arises out of the many other related problems from the incompetent contractor who installed his swimming pool and related facilities. Unfortunately, Gilbert Parks was the source of a host of problems for both Dr. Lockyer and his neighbor Ron Bailie, and on many occasions both I and the architect have pondered how in the world Mr. Parks was even issued a permit in view of his grossly inadequate drawings. In any event, we have just commenced a lawsuit against Mr. Parks and various suppliers relating to the problem and the entire swimming pool project. I have not even received appearances from attorneys for the various parties as yet but would expect to have them coming in within the next three weeks. After they appear in the case, I am sure that the other attorneys will want to have their experts examine the various components of damage which we are claiming and the drainage problem is one of the items of damage. We are aware that this needs correction and my client is perfectly willing to have the drains properly connected, but on the other hand we are very reluctant to correct the problem until the defendants attorneys in the lawsuit have had a reason- able length of time in which to assess and verify our alleged claims including the drain connections. In view of this we would request that this problem and its' solution be deferred for about 90 days to provide ample verification and inspection time for the defendants in this suit. When this has been accomp- lished it would then be appropriate for you and my client to get together and agree upon a solution to the problem. If you would prefer, my client would certainly be happy to get together with Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. January 15, 1982 Page 2 you and try to.arrive at an agreed solution to the problem at any time provided that we can delay making the changes until the opponents have examined it. Whichever procedure you prefer is acceptable to us and I will look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, LEE R. McNAIR LRM/dm cc: Robert Lockyer O SENDER: Complete items I, 2, and 3. Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. I . The following service is requested (check one). Show to whom and date delivered .......... Show to whom, date, and address of delivery. RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom and date delivered .......... RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom, date, and address of delivery.$_ (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Mr. Robert Lock er Edmonds, 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: ' REGISTERED NO. I CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. P12 4968 14 1 (Always obtain signature of addressee or a Wff I have received the article described eve. SIGNATURE D Addressee Authorized agent a. DATE OF DELIVERY 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if request d) 6. UNABLE 1A SE: m O D_ * GPO• 1978-272-382 r SE ER: Comp" items M2, and 3. t'�^ " Add your address In the "RETURN;TO" space on reverse. 1. he f ing service Is requested (check one.) '�/�'�.+� delivered �a' Show to whom and date ............ Show to whom, date and address of delivery.-4 l}9 RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom and date delivered ............s-4 I� RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom, date, and address of delivery.$ r (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Rober4 I. 4gpAi er sIn'el.�^{- r• n l�� 3. ARTICLE DESi RIPTION: 1 REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIEDNO IN E O to ?42S (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) I have received the article described above. SIGNATURE OAddressea t]Authorizedd agent a. 1 OFDELIVERY POS K ;DE — � 4 lb7j1. 5. ADDRESS (Complete only If requested) S. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSW7 CLERKS INITIALS *GP0:197e.900.469 i r ..y...! •l". t �..: CITY OF EDMONDS HARVE H. HARMRAIYOR CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 775.2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT February 23, 1981 Robert L. Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Swimming Pool Construction @ 127 Skyline Drive Building Division records indicate that your Permit #780577 has expired and the construction has not had progress inspections as required by Section 304 of the Uniform Building Code. The rockery on the west side of your property was not adequately shown on the original plan. Rockeries which are subject to lateral loads such as a swimming pool, require special engineering considerations. You must apply for a new permit within 30 days. Your new plans must include an as -built plan of the rockery and a certification of it's adequacy to retain all imposed loads prepared by a registered engineer. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Harold Reeves Building Official HR/cn 41 V • to MEMO TO: Building Division FROM: Engineering Division April 28, 1981 SUBJECT: DRAINAGE AT 115 - and - 127 SKYLINE DRIVE Field inspections conducted on April 23, 1981 per your request revealed the following problems: 115 SKYLINE DRIVE Provision for drainage needs to be improved. The property owner proposed completion of a drainage plan with the proposed swim- ming pool plan. We found this proposal acceptable, but a drain- age plan should be prepared, reviewed and implemented within a reasonable amount of time. We are requiring a drainage plan and its implementation prior to final approval. Completion should be required within six months. 127 SKYLINE DRIVE A dye -test of the surface drainage system revealed that this sys- tem is connected to a sanitary sewer. Such connection is not acceptable. The property owner should prepare a plan for separ- ation of the surface drainage from the sanitary sewer. This plan must be approved by our division, then implemented prior to our approval of the Building Permit. Our office will pro- vide any assistance we can in preparing an acceptable plan. Please have the owner contact Bob Franklin at 771-3202. jAKES E. ADAMS BF/jf September 28, 1981 MEMO TO: Building Division FROM: Engineering Division SUBJECT: DRAINAGE, VICINITY OF SKYLINE DRIVE (127 Skyline Drive) A prior inspection of the subject address indicated that storm drains were connected to sanitary sewers. Investigation in. the _vicinity, of .Skyline Drive (see_Attachment 1)- indicates, that downslope properties are already having problems due to surface runoff from the subject address and its neighboring lots. The steep slopes and rockeries which are present make drywells an undesirable alternative. Our field surveys.indicate.it is possible to install a storm drain as shown on Attachment 2. As this storm drain would benefit several properties, we suggest you may want to forward this information,to the Homeowners Association for their consideration. If you have questions please contact Bob Franklin, 771-3202. BF:gdl Attachments M Tr7 AW b Mt -It's e 0" 7 d�2 14 5 .3 c` 8�L� 9 t t �� 4 10 12 Emerald Hills Park Site ✓ ��.c� (Private) Highlander .I� 13 1-3,e,4 q� Iwo' ��`� 49 20 14P 48 61 21 C ��' 15 CL - — 60 22 6 q7 16 51 CA 59 :,r-4 1 -- 23 17 � [y �23 "-27- —26� 25 52 14,%� I,(c6�`°'✓ 24 Emerald Hills Drive O 18 46 �58 30 53 rcv C cy�31` 33 36 Y 37 w 45 �l i'�`° e 8 �� U / . 40 z �� q % 57 - Q �41 �cr a� 41 35, �p 38 w ,Q,.1 VJ`' 39 a 42 43 55 56 •,vim Main Street ;i s "M6'."C.'s1:1.!'7r,. i+.;rx•r++vt.,r .a--^ --_ _-. _ _ of LAW OFFICES ALAN F. HALL 1403 SEATTLE TOWER 3RD 6 UNIVERSITY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TELEPHONE 206-662-1931 November 19, 1981 Mr. Ronald Bailie 115 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Robert Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Pressure Vessel Service 6473 Anstell Avenue Detroit, MI 48123 Mr. Frank Vitcovich President Emerald Hills Homeowners Assn. 236 - 12th North Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Edmonds Building Division 505 Bell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Mr. Reeves Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. City. Engineer 200 Dayton Street Edmonds, WA 98020 NOV 2 3 RECO Re: Lots 53, 54 and 55, Emerald Hills Water Runoff Problem Dear Sirs: Please be advised that I represent Mr. and Mrs. Harry Carver, who are the owners of Lot 45 in Emerald Hills and which sits just west of Lot 53 and north- west of Lots 54 and 55. A diagram of the location of the subject property is attached and marked "Exhibit A . " Page Two Approximately one and a half years ago the owners of Lots 54 and 55 initiated construction of swimming pools on their lots.' During .the course of this con- struction they used Lot 53 as a staging area for materials and construction equipment. It is our belief that Lot 53 is owned by Pressure Vessel Services, Inc. of Detroit, Michigan. Lot 54 is owned by Mr. Lockyer and Lot 55 is owned by Mr. Bailie. As the construction projects progressed various changes were made in the terrain of the land which I might add sits uphill from my client's property. Previous to the construction there was ground cover and the soil was able to absorb water coming from rainstorms. As a result of the construc- tion the soil and the ground cover has changed considerably and at least as to Lots 54 and 55, they are now covered with water and impervious materials and the water is no longer capable of being absorbed into the soil. As a result of the use of Lot 53, the terrain of that lot has been changed so that now there is a gully -type situation which catches the runoff from Lot 54 and which is ' diverted into my client's property which is immediately to the west of Lot 53. As a result, when it rains, the water courses down over my client's rockery and in fact is eroding and has eroded the rockery to a sub- stantial degree. When it rains severely the water continues on down and hits the foundation of my client's house. In fact, in the past, the water actually got in the house causing damage to the house which my clients had to spend money to repair. The law is clear in the State of Washington that you can't change a natural water course and cause it to be cast onto another's property which is what has occurred in this case. It is my understanding that there is a resolution to this problem in the .form of a storm sewer system and this also is reflected on Exhibit A. We would like very much to resolve this matter as early as possible because of the continuing nature of the problem. It is my understanding that the pool constructed on Mr. Lockyer's property is completed but that pool on Mr. Bailie's property's not completed and that additional construction is necessary. It is my belief that the construction should not proceed without adequate protection to the property downslope from Lot 55, including my client's property. We are concerned that heavy construction equipment on the walkway between the subject properties will cause further damage and increase the problem. It is also my understanding that the solution to this problem would be the construction of a new storm sewer line and catch basins as indicated on Exhibit A. My clients have also been advised that the walkway between the subject properties should be leveled out so that the ravine affect is decreased.. I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this matter at your earliest convenience, and it is our belief that this matter can be resolved amongst the parties by a negotiated settlement. Page Three Thank you for your attention to this matter . Very truly yours, Alan F. Hall Enclosure 6473 ANSTELL, DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48213 November 25, 1981- DEC 7 RECO Mr. Alan F. Hall 1403 Seattle Tower 3rd & University Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Sir: Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1981 with reference to Lot 53 in Emerald Hills. Please be advised that Pressure Vessel Service neither authorized nor approved the use of its land for the construction of swimming pools on Lots 54 and 55. We are not aware that any changes have been made in the terrain of the land which we own, and if such terrain changes have been made we will hold those parties who made them respon- sible for the correction. It is always the intention of Pressure Vessel Service to be a good neighbor. We would like to know specifically what changes to our terrain have been made, and who specifically you believe has made them. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely yours, i t Ja es B. icholson JBN:lab cc: Mr. Ronald ailie Mr. Robert ockyer Mr. Frank itcovich City of Edmonds✓ Mr.. James E. Adams, P.E. Mr. Donald G. Harrison DEC 9 READ 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, Washington 98020 December 4, 1981 Mr. ,flan F . Hall 1403 Seattle Tower 3rd & University Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Sir: I am writing in response to your letter of November 19, 1981 concerning the water runoff from lot 53 in Emerald Hills. Some of your conclusions are correct, but it is unfortunate that you based these conclusions on some information which is Incorrect. First, the terrain of lot 53 has not been changed. This can be verified by looking at long standing trees and shrubs to see that the land still comes to the original base height of these plants. Second, there 1s absolutely no water -runoff -problem from lot 54 down_ the hill. This --has- been verf led by the City -,of_, Edmonds engineers -when they came for an, evalution. Your clients' suggestion of the placement of a. storm sewer line and catch basins is very ill-advised. The City of Edmonds from the very beginning of the development of Emerald Hills did not see the need for this and did not require the developer to place these lines. If these were necessary there would be many other lots in Emerald Hills which would also be affected bees -use of similar positions on the hill, namely lots 43, 44,. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55. Certainly the City of Edmonds engineers knew what they were doing when they approved this development in the beginning. She problems that your clients have listed have no relation to the lots above them. Their basement water problem (which lnci- dently I believe was a one time occurance and even though we have had two heavy rainstorms in November, there has been no flooding occur in their basement) is simply a problem of water not being properly.diverted around their house foundation. A neighbor of theirs two houses down at the same level on the hill as they are had a similar problem. They solved it by providing extra drain- age around their house near their foundation. Also, your clients' rockery was built with crushed rock behind it . to provide for water runoff. Even if some soll from their own lot above the rockery washes over the rocks during a very heavy rain, this does not mean that the strength of their rockery is threatened. Go Page 2 All of us who live on hillsides must realize that during heavy rainstorms the bark on our hill will wash down some and even some of our soil may be slightly eroded. Fortunately, in our area these bad rainstorms only occur about twice a year. Your clients should not expect their neighbors, the Emerald Hills Homeowners Association, nor the City of Edmonds to solve problems which are their own responsibility. I hope that this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Dr. Robert L. Lock er cc: Mr. Ronald Bailie Pressure Vessel Service Mr. Frank Vitcovitch City of Edmonds Mr. James E. Adams, P•E• Mr. Lee R. McNair. of a ATTORNEYS AT LAW LEE R. MCNAIR DEC 1 1 REM 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 623-8042 December 8, 1981 Mr. Alan F. Hall Attorney at Law 909 Seattle Tower 3rd & University Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Mr. Hall: I represent Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Bailie. They have asked me to respond to your letter written on behalf of Harry Carver. This is to advise that there has in fact been no change of Lots 53, 54 and 55 which in any way changes the water runoff. The condition of Lot 53 is the same now as it was previous to the. construction work done at my clients home. There was some dis- turbance of the growth, but that has all returned to its' natural state. My clients have no plans for construction at the present time. You state that my clients' lot and Dr. Lockyer's lot are covered with water. My clients disagree with that assertion. I suggest that your clients' problem is simply one of having had unduly heavy rains in the recent past and is not a result of any change of the, terrain and my clients certainly have not in any wavy changed any natural water course. Accordingly, they are not interested in your proposal regarding installation of a drain system. Very truly yours, LEE R. MCNAIR LRM/dm cc: Robert Lockyer Pressure Vessel Service Frank Vitcovich .City. of . Edmonds. James E. Adams, P.E. CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center • Edmonds, Washington 98020 Telephone (206) 775-2525 Office of the City Engineer December 8, 1981. Mr. Robert Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear Mr. Lockyer: SUBJECT. SEI-TER CONNECTION/1-27 Skyline Drive I was informed that the storm drains on your property are connected to the sanitary sewer. Ths is a visor lation of Section 18.10.020 of the Edmonds City Code, Prior to taking any corrective action, please submit a plan for my approval. _ If you believe that your drains are not connected to the sanitary sewer, please call and I will meet with you,at your convenience,to mutually make an inspection. If I can be of any assistance, or if you have any ques- tions retarding the matter, please call me at 771-3202, Extension 279. Sincerely, JA�TF, S E , ADAPTS, P., E , City Engineer JEA/ j CC: City Attorney L,oKuilding Official • e/ICC., eJ. C� ATTORNEYS AT LAW LEE R. MCNAIR 328 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (208) 623-6042 December 8, 1981 Mr. Alan F. Hall Attorney at Law 909 Seattle Tower 3rd & University Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Mr. Hall: DEC 10 1981 Dir. Dt Pubk Works I represent Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Bailie. They have asked me to respond to your letter written on behalf of Harry Carver. This is to advise.that there has in fact been no change of Lots 53, 54 and 55 which in any way changes the water runoff. The condition of Lot 53 is the same now as it was previous to the construction work done at my clients home. There was some dis- turbance of the growth, but that has all returned to its' natural state. My clients have no plans for construction at the present time. You state that my clients' lot and Dr. Lockyer's lot are covered with water. My clients disagree with that assertion. I suggest that your clients' problem is simply one of having had unduly heavy rains in the recent past and is not a result of any change of the terrain and my clients certainly have not in any way changed any natural water course. Accordingly, they are not interested in your proposal regarding installation of a drain system. Very truly yours, LEE R. McNAIR LRM/dm cc: Robert Lockyer Pressure Vessel Service Frank Vitcovich City of Edmonds flames'-:E' . Adams., °:, P.E:.- STR �` 'FIL 00 DEC 8 1981 Do 127' Skyline -,Drive tamond-s--, Wash irig"t on 98020 December 4, 1981 Mr. Alan F. Hall 1403 Seattle Tower 3rd & University Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Sir: I am writing in response to your letter of November 19, 1981 concerning the water runoff from lot 53 in Emerald Hills. Some of your conclusions are correct, but it is unfortunate that you based these conclusions on some Information which is Incorrect. First, the terrain of lot 53 has not been changed. This can be verified by looking at long standing trees and shrubs to see that the land still comes to the original base height of these plants. Second, there is absolutely no water runoff problem from lot 54 down the hill. This has been verified by the City of Edmonds engineers when they came for an evalution. Your clients' suggestion of the placement of a storm sewer line and catch basins is very ill-advised. The City of Edmonds from the very beginning of the development of Emerald Hills did not see the need for this and did not require the developer to place these lines. If these were necessary there would be many other lots in Emerald Hills which would also be affected bees -use of similar positions on the hill, namely lots 43, 44, 45, 46, 470 48, 491 50, 51, 529 53, 54, and 55. Certainly the City of Edmonds engineers knew what they were doing when they approved this development in the beginning. The problems that your clients have listed have no relation to the lots above them. Their basement water problem (which inci- dently I believe was a one time occurance and even though we have had two heavy rainstorms in November, there has been no flooding occur in their basement) is simply a problem of water not being properly diverted around their house foundation. A neighbor of theirs two houses down at the same level on the hill as they are had a similar problem. They solved it by providing extra drain- age around their house near their foundation. Also, your clients' rockery was built with crushed rock behind it to provide for water runoff. Even if some soil from their own lot above the rockery washes over the rocks during a very heavy rain, this does not mean that the strength of their rockery is threatened. Page 2 All of us who live on hillsides must realize that during heavy rainstorms the bark on our hill will wash down some and even some of our soil may be slightly eroded. Fortunately, in our area these bad rainstorms only occur about twice a year. Your clients should not expect their neighbors, the Emerald Hills Homeowners Association, nor the City of Edmonds to solve problems which are their own responsibility. I hope that this Information is helpful to you. Sincerely, --9' .4 I Dr. Robert L. Lock er cc: Mr. Ronald Bailie Pressure Vessel Service Mr. Frank Vitcovitch City of Edmonds Mr. James E. ,dams, P•E• Mr. Lee R. McNair 9 i*PY CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • Telephone (206) 775-2525 Office of the City Engineer December 8, 1981 -CERTIFIED MAIL- Mr. Robert Lockyer S� 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA. 98020 �� Dear Mr. Lockyer: A; SUBJECT: SVTER CONNECTION/127 Skyline' Drive I was informed that the storm drains on your property are connected to the sanitary sewer. This i.s a,vio lation of Section 18.10.020 of the Edmonds City Code,' Prior to taking any corrective action, please submit a plan for my approval. If you believe that your drains are not connected to the sanitary sewer, please call and I will meet with you,at your convenience,to mutually hake an inspection., If I can be of any assistance, or if you have any ques- tions regarding the matter, please call me at 771-3202, Extension 279. JEA/ j .f CC: City Attorney Building Official arc t Sincerely, City Engineer RECENED 6473 ANSTELL. DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48213 Dir. Of Public Works November 25, 1981 /; 7 1e_'-Lr L 10-9 boo Mr. Alan F. Hall 1403 Seattle Tower 3rd & University ! Seattle, Washington 98101 i Dear Sir: Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1981 with reference to Lot 53 in Emerald Hills. Please be advised that Pressure Vessel Service neither authorized nor approved the use of its land for the construction of swimming pools on Lots 54 and 55. We are not aware that any changes have been made in the terrain of the land which we own, and if such terrain changes have been made we will hold those parties who made them respon- sible for the correction. It is always the intention of Pressure Vessel Service to be a good neighbor. We would like to know specifically what changes to our terrain have been made, and who specifically you believe has made them. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely your WI,E'A J 'es B. icholson i JBN:lab 1 cc: Mr. Ronald ailie - �T Mr. Robert ockyer Mr. Frank itcovich City of Edmonds Mr. James E. Adams, P.E.1/ Mr. Donald G. Harrison • RSCE ED LAW OFFICES ALAN F. HALL NOV 2 3 198t_ . 1403 SFATTLE TOWER 3R0 6 UNIVERSITY OIFa Of Public Works SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 TELEPHONE 206-682-1931 November 19, 1981 Mr. Ronald Bailie STRLL '�� 115 Skyline Drive j Edmonds, WA 98020 -Mr. Robert Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive - - Edmonds, WA 98020 —Pressure Vessel Service 6473 Anstell Avenue Detroit, MI 48123 Mr. Frank Vitcovich President Emerald Hills Homeowners Assn. 236 - 12th North Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Edmonds . Building Division 505 Bell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn : Mr. Reeves Mr. James E. Adams, P.E. City Engineer 200 Dayton Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Lots 53, 54 and 55, Emerald Hills Water Runoff Problem Dear Sirs: Please be advised that I represent Mr. and Mrs. Harry Carver, who, are the owners of Lot 45 in Emerald Hills and which sits just west of Lot 53 and north- west of Lots 54 and 55.. A diagram of the location of the subject property is attached and marked "Exhibit A. r v Page Two Approximately one and a half years ago the owners of Lots 54 and 55 initiated construction of swimming pools on their lots. During the course of this con- struction they used Lot 53 as a staging area for materials and construction equipment. It is our belief that Lot 53 is owned by Pressure Vessel Services, Inc. of Detroit, Michigan. Lot 54 is owned by Mr. Lockyer and Lot 55 is owned by Mr. Bailie. As the construction projects progressed various changes were made in the terrain of the land which I might add sits uphill from my client's property. Previous to the construction there was ground cover and the soil was able to absorb water coming from rainstorms. As a result of the construc- tion the soil and the ground cover has changed considerably and at least as to Lots 54 and 55, they are now covered with water and impervious materials and the water is no longer capable of being absorbed into the soil. As a result of the use of Lot 53, the terrain of that lot has been changed so that now there is a gully -type situation which catches the runoff from Lot 54 and which is diverted into my client's property which is immediately to the west of Lot 53. As a result, when it rains, the water courses down over my client's rockery and in fact is eroding and has eroded the rockery to a sub- stantial degree. When it rains severely the water continues on down and hits the foundation of my client's house. In fact, in the past, the water actually got in the house causing damage to the house which my clients had to spend money to repair. The law is clear in the State of Washington that you can't change a natural water course and cause it to be cast onto another's property which is what ,_ems occurred in this case. It is my understanding that there is a resolution to this problem in the form of a storm sewer system and this also is reflected on Exhibit A. We would like very much to resolve this matter as early as possible because of the continuing nature of the problem. It is my understanding that the pool constructed on Mr. Lockyer's property is completed but that pool on Mr. Bailie's property's `not completed and that additional construction is necessary. It is my belief that the construction should not proceed without adequate protection to the property downslope from Lot 55, including my client's property. We are concerned that heavy construction equipment on the walkway between the subject properties will cause further damage and increase the problem. It is also my understanding that the solution to this problem would be the construction of a new storm sewer line and catch basins as indicated on Exhibit A. My clients have also been advised that the walkway between the subject properties should- be leveled out so that the ravine affect is decreased. I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this matter at your earliest convenience, and it is our belief that this matter can be resolved amongst the parties by a negotiated settlement. 0 * Page Three Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, COZ,J? �) Alan F . Hall Enclosure e ACHMP.NT . �. ILIGur INCO • tz M H >r T1DAM 1 N LAM maw -co 1� �V At 01005 Iaf-W C8 11 F1tpM LOTS -_-- -- 33 54, SS ; 'r0 A 6r T1 G HT- . New CBS. 43 % � �, EXHIBIT NO. i/ WOOPY MEMO TO: Building Division FROM: Engineering Division April 28, 1981 SUBJECT: DRAINAGE AT 115 - and - 127 SKYLINE DRIVE Field inspections conducted on April 23, 1981 per your request revealed the following problems: 115 SKYLINE DRIVE Provision for drainage needs to be improved. The property owner proposed completion of a drainage plan with the proposed swim- ming pool plan. We found this proposal acceptable, but a drain- age plan should be prepared, reviewed and implemented within a reasonable amount of time. We are requiring a drainage plan and its implementation prior to final approval. Completion should be required within six months. 127 SKYLINE DRIVE A dye -test of the surface drainage system revealed that this sys- tem is connected to a sanitary sewer. Such connection is not acceptable. The property owner should prepare a plan for separ- ation of the surface drainage from the sanitary sewer. This plan must be approved by our division, then implemented prior to our approval of the Building Permit. Our office will pro- vide any assistance we can in preparing an acceptable plan. Please,.have the owner contact Bob Franklin at 771-3202. BF/jf 0) 4 -9-- R B. Frank V n dt J E. ADAMS STrftLi� FILE • CITY OF EDi' ONDS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 775.2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT N O T I C E TO: Robert Lockyer April 25, 1980 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, Washington 98020 HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR RE: BUILDING PERMIT NO. 780577 JOB ADDRESS: 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, Washington 98020 DATE OF ISSUANCE: 10-6-78 This letter is to advise you that the Building Division files do not indicate recent inspections for the subject Building Permit. The job card issued for posting at the job site lists the schedule of inspections required for your reference and convenience. If no progress has.been made on construction, please advise the Building Division so that appropriate notation can be made in the file. The initial Building Permit is valid for one year, therefore, if construction is not completed within one year from the date of issuance of the permit, a renewal is required. Your cooperation in this matter to assure compliance with the Edmonds Building Code is encouraged. Harold Reeves Acting Building Official HR/rm Contact Lee Wilikenson in The Public Works Dept and make an appointment to have your pool connection finaled off. 775-2525 ext223 00 G�. �Y WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS 815 Mercer Street (P.O. Box 1869) Seattle, ►Uasbington 98111 LIEF LARSON CITY ENGINEER 505 BELL STREET EDMONDS WA. 98020 ATTN: DICK ALLEN COMPANY Telephone (206) 622-6767 Gentlemen: Washington Natural Gas Company hereby applies for permission to: INSTALL NEW SERVICE AT THE FOLLOWING: 127 Skyline Drive J;1 'J 1979 Dir. Of Pub;;c Works 5/8" P.E. 163-67,003 Construction is scheduled to begin January, 1979 and will require approximately 30 days to complete. If this work meets with your approval, please sign and return the original of this form. WASHINGTON NATURAL "GAS COMPANY SrReeCl� * � V Application Date December 28. 1978 Douglas V. Damm Operations Supervisor WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY is hereby authorized to perform the work listed above in ac- cordance with their franchise and subject to all applicable state, county, and/or municipal ordinances and specifications. 7F� ? /, 3-1lp Approval Date wNG 566.1 (7/76) 0 0 Oper, Ditch Existing -- Reqd. CYrlvert Reqd. Size a Catch Basin Reqd. Indicate on Site Plan o Shoulder drai.nal;c mni.ntair c lee i on scaale open runoff H `n ilm-thole regd. Indicate on Site Plan Soil Conditions and Ground Water Field Checked l:c\*irw hy'e49Q Date Street Paving Reqd. H Curb and Glitter Reqd. w Sidewalk Reqd. Curb Cut for Drivec.-ay Reqd. p; Right -of -Way Constructio P- t Reqd. H Bond Reqd. for Public r nts cn Street Name Sign Reqd. Other Sig-iing Reqd. Q Pre Perrni.t Site Inspection r-ride on o BY: SEI:TER 'H " U W W WATER w !-' z STREET ENGINEEP.I- :G 'A Special Requirc::•,,:,nts listed in mem to Corr-"-iity Development Deparm-ont, ¢ Building Division BY Date -- , o All items filled in on Building Permit Application a BY Date P'4 Ilracainf;s Stanned and Notations 1,1-ide w BY Date dd Approved by Publ.i.c %.!orks DepartiT nt ltevi.scd: lv 10-1977 0 w I RKS DEPART=, CHECKLI � 7 ^ . Date MG PERMITIW J y DL Address Street Right -of -Way Existing `��'- REQD Access Easements Existing REQD �-- Utility Easement Existing REQD Lot per Subdivision Plat_ Assessor Map Site Plan Checked for -Accuracy Underground Wiring Reqd. Check Accuracy of Legal Description Environmentally Sensitive Area Envirormtiental Checklist Reqd. (Up Flood Hazard Zone 1�)6 Shoreline Management Area Slope, Soil, Vegetation Stream, Creek, Drainage Existing Zoning Per Code Amenities Design Board Approval Reqd. + ADB # Board of Adjustment Approval Reqd. Review By: Date: Existing Water :Main Size Water Main Reqd. XA- ,, Service Line Reqd. w Hydrant Size ExistinggO e H Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code A)A Size Q-r Detector Check Meter Reqd. v* Cross Connection Inspection, Approval Fc'rsn�r+ctrncr,t- ('�cigtg j1LLCGLG�L✓� tt�%¢r,��'�X1. Water Meter Charge Reqd. ""'14p Review by: Date: Septic T c sign Approve ate: A)/,z Septic Tank Permit Reqd. alp Permit No. `A Sanitary Sewer Availability. !�_P� Proj. x Drawing No. File No. ., Side Sewer Availability w Sanitary Sewer--90cmection Fee Reqd. Review By: Date. r sv 7'N e O/s eAv.�,e ev .0 et . _ � ��ld��' (o �e� �stic�tJb a-�ifc0 %� we�w�r��+1► � �iEv ra��c,��. . _ cc 3i7 f/7/7F DATE: /7,V MEMO TO: Building Division Community Development Department FROM: Engineering Division Public Works Department SUBJECT: After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: (1) Coordination of the location of any structure with respect'to utilities, streets, property lines and driveway grades is tTe responsibility of the contractor. (2) The contractor is required to keep the abutting streets clean- ed of dirt and debris cause y t e construction. _(3) A "Right -of. -Way Construction Permit" is required, from the Engineering Division of Public Works, for any work within the Public Right -of -Way or public easement. _(4) Driveway slope not to exceed 14%. uft a 0 Nam PW 5/77 A& Robert L. Lockyer 127 Skyline Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Permit # 780577 8/2/78 10/6/78 Permit #780577 approved for construction. Application from Gil W. Park for permit to install swimming pool at Lockyer residence. Plan with application indicated a property line rockery 100' long, but only 4' high, with another 10' high rockery setback from property line. F'r 10/6/78 - Building Department records indicate no required progress inspections 1/22/79 on project. 1/16/79 Complaint received that a neighbor below.was concerned about the safety of the rockery. 1/22/79 Site inspection by H. Reeves for the purpose of investigation of the January 16th complaint. Rockery was found.to be completed without inspection and that approved plans were changed without Building Department authorization. 4/25/80 Letter to Lockyer stating that permit #780577 was expired, and he should renew permit and/or call for .i`nspection. Building Department records indicated no response from Lockyer. 2/23/81 Certified letter to Lockyer requiring as -built plan and engineered certification of rockery. 2/27/81 Inspection of pool installation. Other code violations noted. Lockyer informed in writing of the violations. 4/ /81 Inspection of Lockyer property by H. Reeves and B. Franklin. Dye test of storm drains proved that they were connected to the City's sanitary sewer system, in violation of City Codes-. 12/8/81 Letter from City Engineer to Lockyer putting him on notice for drainage code violation.. 12/ /81 - Attempts by Building Department to retain a professional engineer for 7/ /82 the purpose of inspection and evaluation of-Lockyer'-s rockery. 7/26/82 Inspection of rockery by H. Reeves and Dale Hemphill, Registered Engineer. 9/25/82 _ Engineering study by Hemphill completed. 9/30/82 Phone conversation with Lockyer setting a meeting date of October 5, 1982 to discuss Hemphill'study of rockery. 10/5/82 Lockyer failed to attend meeting or contact Building Department regarding his intentions. 10/7/82 Referred to City Attorney P- s= r .r CITY OW EDM® DS EXAiF N -- ? E. DATEOF — REMARKS = I4�!Spr;•t"�'i"S IZ1ii4Ull`iED l:,y ❑ FOONOATIC,-M ❑ SI�E aC- ';; ❑ -'TIC TANK - - --- -------- - — — — -- - _ .- n ❑ w4TCR SERVICi_ ❑ FI. E PROTECTION _ ❑ INAGE i�ri SI E.IMPROVEMENTS �...__ J _ Cam%!1 _�� i, l ❑ INSPECTION NOT REQUIRED F ILL THIS Nrz.9- S 1'C� Z%CLliIN. R E �LT_15s. TH+� Soo c V .-, pC kY�� ^Mr-kA41) �li��s P�� oRp. 17't4 O - . ..�� .. _ - a..�.an+ �� r� ice' / .4a �"� - . - .r ..� �. _ -.-� r. __ - w.► V r I'�L` o N b. f l y `�v.(:7 1 C NC72F, 4b BD 6-74 CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DEPARTMENT SWIMMING POOL REQUIREMENTS 780577 CODES Edmonds Ordinance Number 1715 Edmonds City Code, Chapter 11.40 Uniform Swimming Pool Code Uniform Plumbing Code 1973 Edition FEES Private Pool $ 10.00 Public or Semi -Private Pool 20.00 SETBACKS (Ordinance ) Front Side Rear RS-12 and 20 25 5 5 Others 20 5 5 PLOT PLAN I. Show pool location on property and setbacks. 2. Paved walk (min. 5 ft. wide) around pool. 3. Location of mechanical equipment, pool equipment:(filter, pump, etc.) shall not be located in required front or side yards. 4. Indicate fence ( 4 ft. minimum height) and gates (self -closing and latching). DESIGN DETAILS I. Structural design drawings must bear seal of licensed engineer. 2. Details of recirculating.water system must be shown on plans, including the following: a. Capacity of system sufficient to provide complete turnover of pool water in 12 hours or less(Section 301). b. Surface skimmer required on basis of one per. 800 square feet of surface area and designed for flow rate of 25 GPM per skimmer. c. If exception is taken to recirculating system as provided in Section 204 Of the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, specify fresh water system details. Swimming Pool Requirements Page #2 3. Plans and specifications of public and semi-public pools must be approved by the Washington State Department,of Health before a permit will be issued by the City. 4. Detail waste water disposal method. INSPECTION NOTES I. Final inspection will be made in conjunction with the State Electrical Inspector. Pool must be filled and in operation. 2. Backflow protection required on water supply. 3. Operating instructions for mechanical equipment must be posted. 4. Electrical bonding of pool must be approved by the State Electrical Inspector prior to covering. � f DATE r CITY OF EDMONDS COMPLAINT RECORD Complaint voiced by: Name: Address: Property owner: Yes U" No Whe re (�t✓VGL-� Address of property to be investigated: Name of owner: Address: Phone: Result of investigation: PGPJA�T-s * 78©G67 7?)os77 R-0 Ck-P-rL S ►N N-A « AS I M) (-C A D CN AAf\ P NO GO NSTi'�VC.T►o►.) 7�T/�ILS Vv�Y`t �VC3Y�►�7T�� — N� Ns rt c k0CAL�-F-D d (z DQW-t N b C(D05-VrWC T 100 Q lc -76 d L (7 W i i_-L- PC �� z N TaC -rt o rJ WAN" �' '.� ��. � •� YN* 'OVx � �rr� �j�� !�'� �}��tl4h` -� � �; �� s 1� -� � � 4 �u �p 1 ' � 1 am,'V' s r, :1.:: �s .i ri. -i, 1 �r r',.�' �. `w.rw!•'urd�. �{.i>.0 �' p L V ., �, i T: 27 N., R.3 E.W. M. j4 Sic. Ca y. r ,n� / q r0Z "(� jL3 /t4 of Sn�S-�`l/(� /2>LIZ§OAjc t 12 J� 24 G L 2,h Ji600 � \�Gl y 9 ,4 ,.`_MAP E,WO0D. -VILLA E i2 ` ''` /2=- 4 //ciY /o _Gll l' 2/ iroc/ B _ \� 3y�_ �3�/5 j�/� ° R-n L Q. 1 �l �. ►n ' /613 0721 .�_../�zl l9 I 3� 49 6/ A APL WO D _ 14 49 50 ST. so kC1MONUS z� w°Q-- '-- 4 • V 73� 116 D —'!� Q L � ZZ J�� 51cr 31 0 � e J s ' 9 VlL No. r -. Q 1+ / T (..�� • 'l) F. t s uj ,j f. /yam Z 58 LLj t111 1115 111 ilk 1�_ /zt;,� Zak; _ 212 AIL` Nn,tsO fh1,�lq�)t S� 6 ''r ' ,;•...' R ,v�r F (tire l,•J OF RvckE�1�S ' .' , MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Building Division Community Development Department Engineering Division Public Works Department 780577 After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: (1) Coordination of the location of any structure with respect to utilities, streets, property lines and driveway grades is the responsibility of the contractor. (2) The contractor is required to keep the abutting streets clean- ed o dirt debris caused by the construction. (3) A "Right -of -Way Construction Permit" is required, from the Engineering Division of Public Works, for any work within the Public Right -of -Way or public easement. (4) Driveway slope not to exceed 140. D F-4 r ow Mai)it mzolc�@' PW 5/77 We 4zcc t ved 4Mo4*/Z. IA/ UIiICy &J 1 Awm /yl,m 6,v,1,, w 104ye R rho 1-- G 12;z S.f y/•� Aelp*c . Nteeds /o c4sctuj wA L,),$rAr wA,�v 2 G"u SCoIr Ate- /rv� /ro/- `ec 450) No 'Cowl yo �j,�`G��Or � -- Ain 410' �- a'p�i�--,�ifc�v �.✓! o Chou IaL 4e s i y y -re ACC7Z- �Di�GD lte w ✓.vci✓S C /I G✓/ N D l�l G�i�� f�/✓sGhoi�, �•� I �- CC T y C19"d�G �r✓�S ��',D �T� l�,,,., ?•(Y'•gG �lt�� '�111i5_ p �f e �✓s p ;i'"Q —d STREET FILE 0 10 o" ^mow 11l r, i N ighland Emerald Hills Drive F L.4 367 Y' 3 �. z�. 40 cc 35 0� w I � - 1 �rlAe�Y-AuRvLc `f vV Ok�1 zap (� )97 fly r'-'C;- yr✓ /�G , To r `ttJ i Q Le"i' ttiv lov. T s' U Tq INv A 1 C M3tix- �►� v � A �'3, c� CH (--Icl/. A-r d CK, R2, S CK W� , 1, ("I i - I i C,-Ir < W'I - 0 � VH ---!, � 0 � 1� AJ e�j I C, - A5" H E M P H I L L CONSULTING ENGINEERS w 0 N ° Q ENGINEERING STUDIES U° > N FOR J Z m Q W w z EXISTING L 0 C K Y E R ROCKERY ° � J W LOCATED AT o Z U a 0 127 SKYLINE DRIVE, EDMONDS, WA. m W 0 N w z 0 0 w N Q Q 3 W J 0 Q w Z Z ] < W Q Q F 0 0 m 9 Z 0 w w U W W N Z a 6 Ln z z z 0 Y 0 W Q H 0 � 7 ? N w Q Z >a w UU > W ❑ Z 0 w Q F E w z 0 m z X Q W W 00Z Ll U) Q ¢ W 0 L F 0 m J LL C N 0 FOR CITY of EDMONDS PROJECT NUMBER 6710 DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER, 1982 4612 170th PLACE N. E. 0 REDMOND, WA. 9BO52 6 (206) g83 3924 FIGURE 1 SECTION THRU ROCKERY _................................ _...._........._.............. ................................................................ ................... ......... ......... ......... ................... ......... ................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... :::::: y......::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ......... ......... ;::::::: 2 :U TME_NS.I:QHS.:UNKN:OWN ::::::: ::: A4: ......... .... C� .SCALE:: ::::::::::::::: ::::.. ::. :::::::::::: . . . . . . . I. INTRODUCTION On 26 July, 1982, at the request of HAL REEVES, CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL for the CITY of EDMONDS, Dale Hemphill of HEMPHILL CONSULTING ENGINEERS investigated the existing Lockyer rockery located at 127 Skyline Drive, Edmonds, Wa. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the safety of the existing rockery, since a failure could endanger lives and could cause significant property damage, and since the rockery was not engineered or inspected during construction by qualified persons. II. SITE INVESTIGATION A. ROCKERY DIMENSIONS Figure 1 shows the appoximate results of an ' investigation conducted at the site. The measurements revealed the following: a. The rockery is approximately 19 feet high, and is keyed into the ground approximately 6" to 12". b The rockery tips back at an approximate average angle of 20 degrees. c. The rockery ranges in thickness from approximately 4 feet at the base to 2 feet at the top. d. The angle between the rocks was inconsistent and ranged from sloping down to sloping up from front to rear. e. The rockery appeared to be backed by a crushed rock. The thickness and composiotion of the crushed rock was not determined. f. The swimming pool is located approximtely 8' from the back of the rockery B. BACKFILL SOIL HEMPHILL assumes the soils behind the rockery to be f ill that was excavated f rom the foundations for the existing house. The exposed soils in the vicinity of the site are composed of various combinations of silts and fine sands. The method and workmanship used to place the fill soils is not known, but there is no evidence of any unusual settling behind the rockery in the vicinity of the pool. 1 HEMPHILL C. NATURAL UNDISTURBED SOILS D. The natural undisturbed soils beneath the fill are assumed to be similar to the soils on the adjacent undeveloped lot to the north, which appear to be very strong from glacial compaction. The surface of the original ground surface beneath the fill is assumed to be similar to the ground surface on the adjacent lot, which slopes approximately 15 degrees down to the west, as shown in Figure 1. SWIMMING POOL The true dimensions of the swimming pool, as shown in Figure 1, and the method of constructing the foundation, are not known. HEMPHILL suspects that the fill soils were excavated to place the pool, therefore the soils below the pool would have been precompressed by soils weighing approximately 120 pcf, and then replaced by a pool which exerted much lower pressures equal to approximately 60 pcf. The pool will be a greater advantage at the deeper end for two reasons: 1. The pool displaces a greater volume of the heavier soil at the deeper end. 2. The pool has the advantage of being a structural member, therefore the uphill portions of the pool will help to hold the downhill portions, and will decrease any lateral pressures that the replaced backfill soils would have exerted against the rockery. HEMPHILL ignored the value of the pool for the investigation, assuming that the worse conditions for the rockery occur at the shallower end of the pool where the lateral soil pressures are greater and the rockery is higher. 2 HEMPHILL III. ENGINEERING STUDIES A. MECHANICS of ROCKERY The mechanics of a vertical rockery are fairly simple. The lateral pressures created by the soils above each 1 foot section of the rockery can cause the rockery to fail by either sliding or overturning. Those failures are resisted by the total weight of the rockery above that section. The rockery mechanics become much more complex as the rockery tilts back. The calculations for the rockery investigation were conducted at each foot of height, with the portion of the rockery above each 1' rockery section treated as an independent wall resisting sliding and overturning. With the estimated soil and rock parameters, calculations were conducted to determine the required thickness of rockery from front to rear at each 1' section to achieve the required friction forces to resist sliding, and to achieve resistance to overturning. 1. SLIDING BETWEEN ROCKS The lateral soil pressures push against the rockery to slide each rock over the rock below. Sliding is resisted by the friction forces between the contact surfaces. The friction force is proportional to the weight of rocks above the contact surface. Since the friction factor is assumed to be 0.55, then the friction force at any intersection of rocks equals 0.55 x the weight of rocks above the intersection. The force of friction resisting sliding is independent of the area of contact between the rocks, unless the area is so small that the contact area pulverizes from the pressures. A component of friction that cannot be evaluated is when a knob on one rock interlocks into a depression on another rock, requiring the knob to shear before sliding can be initiated. Such minor possibilities are included in the 0.55 friction factor, and any large interlocking is ignored for design purposes. 3 H E M P H I L L FIGURE 2 SOIL PRESSURES FOR ESTIMATED BEST EXISTING CONDITIONS D E S C R I P T I O N of P R O J E C T PROJECT NAME t LOCKYER ROCKERY / CITY OF EDMONDS PROJECT NUMBER s 6710 LOCATION OF SECTION t REAR OFHOUSE ADJACENT TO R/W D E S C R I P T I O N of S L I D I N G A. SHAPE OF WEDGE SLOPE 1 ANGLE of SLOPE - 70 DEG HEIGHT of SLOPE 20 FT SLOPE 2 ANGLE of SLOPE 0 DEG HEIGHT of SLOPE 0 FT B. NO SURCHARGE LOADS on WEDGE C. SOIL PARAMETERS UNIT WEIGHT - 120 PCF COHESION - 100 PSF INTERNAL FRICTION - 30 DEG W E D G E HEIGHT TOTAL MOMENT OF LATERAL OF SLOPE 1 FORCE OVERTURN (ft) (lbs) (ft lbs) 9.0 6 2.0 0 4.9 0 6.6 0 7.6 0 8.0 0 9.0 0 10.6 0 11.6 0 12.6 35 12 13.9 132 86 14.6 244 268 15.6 370 571 16.9 516 1,007 17.6 665 1,591 18.9 834 2,338 19.0 1,018 3,261 20.1 1,226 4,380 2. OVERTURNING Generally the required size of rockery necessary to create the frictional resistance to sliding is greater than the required size of rockery to resist overturning. Overturning forces created by the lateral pressures of the soils are resisted by the weight of rockery acting through the centroid of the rockery section. The leverage, or lever arm, is assumed to be from the outer point of contact between the upper and lower rocks to the centroid of the upper section. Helping to resist overturning is the friction along the back of the rockery between the rock and the fill soils. ' At the Lockyer rockery HEMPHILL observed that many of the points of contact between rocks are located away from the front surface, decreasing the ' leverage, and therefore proportionately decreasing the resistance to overturn. B. SOIL PARAMETERS The analysis of the safety of the existing rockery was conducted based on some assumed parameters for the ' present soil conditions, and changed soil parameters that could exist under the worst future conditions. ' To study the effects of the soil pressures on the rockery, HEMPHILL varied the soil parameters, such as cohesion, internal friction, sliding friction at the ' base of the rockery between the lower rock and the soil, and passive resistance to sliding exerted by the soils in front of the lower rock. 1. ESTIMATED BEST EXISTING SOIL CONDITIONS HEMPHILL assumed the maximum, or best, existing ' conditions of the fill soil to be 100 psf cohesion, and 30 degrees internal friction (which equals a friction factor of approximately 0.60). Figure 2 shows the lateral soil pressures and ' overturning moments for the estimated best soil condidions. ' 2. POSSIBLE WORST SOIL CONDITIONS Because of the suspected high silt content of the backfill soils, the cohesive strength of the soils ' can vary over a wide range as the water content fluctuates. During periods of saturation the apparent cohesion force due to capillarity could ' decrease to 0 psf. 4 HEMPHILL FIGURE 3 SOIL PRESSURES FOR ASSUMED WORST FUTURE CONDITIONS D E S C R I P T I O N of P R O J E C T PROTECT NAME s LOCKYER ROCKERY / CITY OF EDMONDS PROTECT NUMBER t 6710 LOCATION OF SECTION s REAR OF HOUSE ADJACENT TO R/W D E S C R I P T I O N of S L I D I N G A. SHAPE OF WEDGE SLOPE 1 ANGLE of SLOPE - 70 DEG HEIGHT of SLOPE - 20 FT SLOPE 2 ANGLE of SLOPE 0 DEG HEIGHT of SLOPE 0 FT B. NO SURCHARGE LOADS on WEDGE C. SOIL PARAMETERS UNIT WEIGHT 120 PCF COHESION 0 PSF INTERNAL FRICTION 25 DEG W E D G E HEIGHT TOTAL MOMENT OF LATERAL OF SLOPE 1 FORCE OVERTURN (ft) (lbs) (ft lbs) 9.0 0 1.0 11 4 2.0 43 28 3.6 98 95 4.9 174 227 5.8 272 446 6.6 391 774 7.9 532 1,232 8.0 695 1,842 9.8 880 2,627 10.6 1,687 3,606 11.9 1,315 4,803 12.9 1,565 6,239 13.6 1,836 7,936 14.0 2,139 91915 15.9 2,445 12,199 16.1 2,782 14,808 17.9 3,140 17,766 18.0 3,520 21,092 19.6 3,922 24,810 20.0 4,346 28,941 ' The increase in pore pressures and seepage pressures could reduce the internal friction to 25 degrees (which equals a friction factor of ' approximately 0.45). The water content of the soils can change as ' groundwater changes, and groundwater control is dependent on proper drainage. If drainage was installed and is presently controlling the groundwater, but improper soil filters were ' installed, then a gradual clogging of the drainage could eventually cause the drainage to fail, and groundwater could then saturate the backfill ' soils. Figure 3 shows the lateral forces and overturning ' moments exerted by the soils above each 1 foot section of the rockery for the estimated worst soil conditions when saturated. Comparing Figures 2 and 3 shows that the possible change from the estimated best soil conditions to the possible worst conditions (which could be the difference in the existing soil conditions depending on the method of placing the backf ill and drainage) could increase the lateral forces by 350$, and could increase the overturning forces by 660%. C. ROCKERY PARAMETERS 1. ROCK PARAMETERS The rock parameters are fairly consistent, assuming the rock density to be approximately 165 pcf, and the minimum friction of rock on rock to be approximately 0.55. 2. ROCKERY PARAMETERS a. Tilt Back of Rockery Tilting the rockery back has an effect on several parameters: 1. The soil is sloped back, reducing the volume of potential sliding soil, therefore reducing the soil pressures. 2. The rocks slide uphill on the lower rocks, increasing -the -resistance to sliding failure. 3. The soil pressures at the toe of the rockery are reduced. 5 H E M P H I L L FIGURE 4 REQUIRED ROCKERY SIZES FOR VARYING ANGLES OF TILT -BACK --------------------------------------------------------------- SLOPE from VERTICAL ALONG BACK of WALL DEGREES / 5 1e 15 2/ 25 36 35 4/ 45 ---------------------------------•------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V s H 1 s e 12 s l 6 s 1 4 t 1 3 s 1 2 s 1 1.7 s l 1.4 s 1 1.2 1 1 1 i 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WALL (REQUIRED MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS for OVERTURNING and SLIDING) HEIGHT OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 :2.0 2.9 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . 2.0 2./ 2./ 1.9 2.6 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.6 2./ 2./ 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 :2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2./ 2.9 2.6 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.e 2./ 4.0 2.0 3.5 2.6 2.7 :2.0 2.1 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.e 2.e 5.0 2.0 4.4 2.0 3.4 :2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 6.0 2.2 5.3 2.6 4.1 :2.0 3.1 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2./ 1 7.0 2.6 6.2 2.2 4.7 :2.0 3.6 2.9 2.8 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2./ 8.9 3.9 7.1 2.6 5.4 :2.2 4.2 2.9 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.9 2./ 2./ 21 2 9.0 3.4 7.9 3.0 6.1 .5 4.7 2.6 3.6 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2./ 10.0 3.8 8.8 3.3 6.8 2.8 5.2 2.3 4.9 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 11.0 4.2 9.7 3.7 7.4 :3.2 5.7 2.6 4.4 240 3.4 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 4.6 19.6 4.1 8.1 3.5 6.3 2.9 4.8 2.2 3.7 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2./ 13.0 5.1 11.5 4.5 8.8 :3.8 6.8 3.2 5.2 2.5 4.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.6 14.0 5.5 12.3 4.8 9.5 4.2 7.3 3.5 5.6 2.8 4.3 2.0 3.1 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2./ 15.9 5.9 13.2 5.2 19.1 4.5 7.8 3.8 6.0 3.1 4.6 2.2 3.4 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.e 2.0 16.0 6.3 14.1 5.6 10.8 4.9 8.3 4.2 6.4 3.3 4.9 2.4 3.6 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 17.0 6.7 15.0 6.9 11.5 5.2 8.9 4.5 6.8 3.6 5.2 2.6 3.8 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 7.2 15.9 6.4 12.2 5.6 9.4 4.8 7.2 3.9 5.5 2.9 4.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.e 19.0 7.6 16.8 6.8 12.8 6.0 9.9 5.1 7.6 4.2 5.8 3.1 4.3 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 FIGURE 5 REQUIRED ROCKERY SIZES FOR VARYING PERCENTAGE OF VOIDS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------� PERCENT of VOID SPACES BETWEEN ROCKS t VOIDS12----------14----------16---------18----------2e----------22 ----24----------26----------------------28 3e---- -------------------- WALL (REQUIRED MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS for OVERTURNING and SLIDING) HEIGHT OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN - -- - -- - -- 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 4.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.0 5.9 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.8 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.9 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.0 3.3 2.0 3.4 2.0 3 5 7.0 2.0 3.2 2.0. 3.3 2.0 3.4 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.6 2.0 3.7 2.0 3.8 2.0 3.9 2.0 8.0 2.0 3.7 2.0 3.8 2.0 3.9 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.2 2.0 4.3 2.0 4.4 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.6 9.0 2.0 4.1 2.0 4.2 2.0 4.3 2.0 4.4 2.0 4.6 2.0 4.7 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.9 2.0 5.1 2.0 10.0 2.0 4.6 2.0 4.7 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.9 2.0 5.1 2.0 5.2 2.0 5.3 2.0 5.5 2.0 5.6 2.0 11.0 2.8 5.1 2.0 5.2 2.0 5.3 2.0 5.4 2.0 5.6 2.0 5.7 2.1 5.9 2.1 6.0 2.2 6.2 2.2 6.4 12.0 2.2 5.5 2.2 5.7 2.2 5.8 2.2 5.9 2.2 6.1 2.3 6.2 2.3 6.4 2.4 6.6 2.4 6.7 2.5 13.0 2.5 6.0 2.5 6.1 2.5 6.3 2.5 6.4 2.5 6.6 2.5 6.7 2.6 6.9 2.7 7.1 2.7 7.3 2.8 14.0 2.8 6.4 2.8 6.6 2.8 6.7 2.8 6.9 2.8 7.1 2.8 7.3 2.9 7.5 2.9 7.7 3.0 7.9 3.1 8.1 15.0 3.1 6.9 3.1 7.1 3.1 7.2 3.1 7.4 3.1 7.6 3.1 7.8 3.2 8.0 3.2 8.2 3.3 8.4 3.4 16.0 3.4 7.4 3.4 7.5 3..4 7.7 3.4 7.9 3.4 8.1 3.4 8.3 3.4 8.5 3.5 8.8 3.6 9.0 3.7 17.0 3.7 7.8 3.7 8.0 3.7 8.2 3.7 8.4 3.7 8.6 3.7 8.8 3.7 9.1 3.8 9.3 3.9 9.6 4.0 18.0 4.0 8.3 4.0 8.5 4.0 8.7 4.0 8.9 4.0 9.1 4.0 9.3 4.0 9.6 4.1 9.9 4.2 10.1 4.3 109 � 19.0 4.3 8.7 4.3 8.9 4„3 9.2 4.3 9.4 4.3 9.6 4.3 9.9 4.3 10.1 4.4 10.4 4.5 10.7 4.6 11.6 Figure 4 shows the required change in thickness for varying angles of tilt along the back of the rockery. The control of the angle of tilt -back on the Lockyer rockery is difficult to determine, because the angle of tilt observed at the surface is not necessarily the angle of tilt behind the rockery. Figure 4 shows that a decrease of tilt of 5 degrees requires an increase of rockery thickness of 30%. or lowers the safety factor by 25%. b. Volume of Voids The percent of voids is difficult to evaluate, because that includes the voids that are unseen behind the rockery, therefore the actual voids could be much higher than the appearance at the rockery surface. Figure 5 shows the change in thickness requirements for each 1 foot of height of the rockery for varying percent of void spaces between the rocks. A 10% increase in the volume of voids requires a 15% increase in the required thickness of the rockery below the upper 4 feet. The lower the volume of voids, the lower the rockery weight necessary to create the friction forces to resist sliding, and the weight to resist overturning. c. Slope of Contact Surfaces A difficulty in evaluating the existing rockery is that a very important parameter for resistance to sliding is the angle of the contact surface between two rocks. If the bottom surface between 2 rocks slopes uphill, the resistance to sliding can be much greater than if that surface should be level or slopes downhill. Since the back of approximately 20 surfaces should degrees to benefit tilt -back. C the rockery tilts back at degrees, then the contact also be no less than 20 from the advantages of the H E M P H I L L ----FIGURE ---6 REQUIR.ED ROCKERY SIZES FOR VARYING SLOPES OF CONTACT SURFACES 4 ------------------- ------------ ---------- ------ ------------- ----------- ---- ------------- -------------- -- SLOPE of CONTACT SURFACES BETWEEN ROCKS DEGREES -26 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WALL (REQUIRED MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS for OVERTURNING and SLIDING) HEIGHT OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SL 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.6 2.0 2:e 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.B 2 2.0 2.0 3.2 2.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.e 2. 3.0 2.0 4.8 2.0 3.2 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.e 2.B 2 4.0 2.0 6.4 2.0 4.3 2.0 3.3 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2./ 2.0 2� 5.6 2.0 8.9 2.0 5.4 2.0 4.1 2.0 3.2 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.1 6.0 2.9 9.6 2.0 6.5 2.0 4.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.2 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.e 2.B 21 7.0 2.0 11.2 2.9 7.6 2.0 5.7 2.0 4.5 2.0 3.8 2.0 3.2 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.B 2 8.0 2.0 12.8 2.6 8.7 2.0 6.5 2.0 5.2 2.0 4.3 2.0 3.7 2.0 3.2 2.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.4 9.0 2.0 14.4 2.0 9.7 2.0 7.3 2.0 5.8 2.0 4.9 2.0 4.2 2.0 3.6 2.0 3.2 2.0 2.9 2.B 2 19.0 2.6 16.0 2.0 10.8 2.0 8.1 2.0 6.5 2.0 5.4 2.0 4.6 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.6 2.0 3.2 2.0 3. 11.0 2.1 17.6 2.1 11.9 2.1 8.9 2.1 7.2 2.1 5.9 2.1 5.1 2.1 4.4 2.1 4.0 2.1 3.6 2.1 3 12.0 2.4 19.2 2.4 13.0 2.4 9.8 2.4 7.8 2.4 6.5 2.4 5.5 2.4 4.9 2.4 4.3 2.4 3.9 2.4 3 13.e 2.6 29.8 2.6 14.1 2.6 10.6 2.6 8.4 2.6 7.0 2.6 6.0 2.6 5.3 2.6 4.7 2.6 4.2 2.6 3.9 14.8 2.9 22.4 2.9 15.1 2.9 11.4 2.9 9.1 2.9 7.6 2.9 6.5 2.9 5.7 2.9 5.0 2.9 4.5 2.9 4 15.0 3.2 23.9 3.2 16.2 3.2 12.2 3.2 9.7 3.2 8.1 3.2 6.9 3.2 6.1 3.2 5.4 3.2 4.9 3.2 4� 16.9 3.5 25.5 3.5 17.3 3.5 13.0 3.5 10.4 3.5 8.6 3.5 7.4 3.5 6.5 3.5 5.8 3.5 5.2 3.5 4.8 17.0 3.8 27.1 3.8 18.4 3.8 13.8 3.8 11.0 3.8 9.2 3.8 7.9 3.8 6.9 3.8 6.1 3.8 5.5 3.8 51 18.0 4.0 28.7 4.0 19.5 4.0 14.6 4.0 11.7 4.0 9.7 4.0 8.3 4.0 7.3 4.0 6.5 4.0 5.8 4.8 5 19.0 4.3 39.3 4.3 20.6 4.3 15.5 4.3 12.3 4.3 10.3 4.3 8.8 4.3 7.7 4.3 6.8 4.3 6.2 4.3 5.6 1 FIGURE 7 REQUIRED ROCKERY SIZES FOR VARYING SAFETY FACTORS --------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- SAFETY FACTOR 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3. ------ ------------------------------------------ WALL HEIGHT OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN 20.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.e 0 19.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.0 2.e 18.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.e B 17.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 16.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.B 0 15.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.B �s 14.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0' 2.4 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.8 2.9 3.0 13.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 .2.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.8 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.3 2.e 15 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.9 2.0 3.2 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.8 2.e 0 11.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.9 2.0 3.2 2.0 3.6 2.1 3.9 2.2 4.2 2.4 4.5 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.9 2.0 3.2 2.0 3.6 2.2 4.0 2.4 4.3 2.6 4.7 2.8 1 9.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.8 2.0 3.2 2.1 3.6 2.3 4.0 2.5 4.4 2.7 4.8 2.9 5.2.3. .6 8.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.6 2.0 3.0 2.1 3.5 2.4 3.9 2.6 4.3 2.8 4.8 3.1 5.2 3.3 5.6 3.5 11 7.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.8 2.1 3.3 2.4 3.8 2.6 4.2 2.9 4.7 3.1 5.2 3.4 5.6 3.6 6.1 3.8 6 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.3 3.5 2.6 4.0 2.9 4.5 3.2 5.1 3.5 5.6 3.7 6.1 4.0 6.6 4.2 7.1 5.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.2 3.2 2.5 3.8 2.9 4.3 3.2 4.9 3.5 5.4 3.8 6.0 4.1 6.5 4.3 7.B 4.6 16 4.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.9 2.4 3.5 2.8 4.0 3.1 4.6 3.5 5.2 3.8 5.8 4.1 6.4 4.4 6.9 4.7 7.5 5.e 1 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.2 3.1 2.6 3.7 3.0 4.3 3.4 4.9 3.8 5.5 4.1 6.1 4.4 6.8 4.8 7.4 5.1 8.0 5.3 8.6 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.4 3.2 2.8 3.9 3.3 4.5 3.7 5.2 4.0 5.8 4.4 6.5 4.8 7.1 5.1 7.8 5.4 :.4 5.7 1 1.0 2.0 2.7 2.6 3.4 3.1 4.1 3.5 4.8 3.9 5.5 4.3 6.2 4.7 6.9 5.1 7.5 5.4 8.2 5.8 .9 6.1 6 Figure 6 shows the difference in required wall thickness for the Lockyer rockery for varying sloped contact surfaces. If a contact surface is horizontal, or 20 degrees less than the specified angle implied by the tilt - back, then the required rockery thickness must be increased by 66% to increase the weight of rock necessary to compensate for the loss in friction, or the safety factor will be decreased by 40%. Surfaces of contact for the existing Lockyer rockery vary greatly, and the worst conditions exist where the surface of contact slopes downward the greatest. d. Safety Factors Safety factors are used to overdesign the rockery the amount necessary so that the rockery is safe for all possible conditions, and to cover any variables that cannot be controlled within a reasonable cost. The safety factor will be increased to cover unknown soil conditions, including drainage that can influence the soil properties. The safety factor is also increased to cover rockery parameters that are difficult to control during construction, such as percent of voids, slope of contact surface, angle of tilt, etc. Other variables included the choice of a safety factor include the range of parameters used in the design of the rockery (ie using a high or low value for percentage of voids), the chance of changed conditions (ie potential for drainage failure), the seriousness of a failure (ie life threatening or cost of property damage), and the degree of control during construction vs the cost of the control. Figure 7 shows how the required thickness of rock from front to rear varies as the safety factor varies. Figure 7 reveals that increasing the safety factor from an unacceptable 1.4 to a more realistic 2.0 requires an increase in rockery size of approximately 50%. 7 H E M P H I L L FIGURE 8 INVESTIGATION OF EXISTING ROCKERY FOR ASSUMED WORST FUTURE CONDITIONS D E S C R I P T I O N of P R O J E C T A. PROTECT NAME LOCKYER ROCKERY / CITY OF EDMONDS B. PROJECT NUMBER 6710 C. LOCATION of ROCKERY SECTION REAR OF HOUSE ADJACENT TO R/W D E S C R.I P T I O N of S L I D I N G W E D G E A. SHAPE OF WEDGE SLOPE 1 ANGLE (from horizontal) 70 DEG SLOPE HEIGHT (vertical) 20 FT SLOPE 2 ANGLE (from horizontal) 0 DEG .SLOPE HEIGHT (vertical) 0 FT B. NO SURCHARGE LOADS ON WEDGE C. SOIL PARAMETERS UNIT WEIGHT 130 PCF COHESION 0 PSP INTERNAL FRICTION 25 DEG D E S C R I P T I O N of R O C K E R Y A. ROCKERY DESIGN PARAMETERS VERTICAL HEIGHT of ROCKERY - 20 FT MINIMUM THICKNESS*AT TOP 2.0 FT TILT of ROCKERY from VERTICAL 20 DEG DENSITY of ROCK 165 PCF I MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VOIDS 30 t FRICTION FACTOR for ROCK on ROCK 0.55 FRICTION FACTOR for ROCK on SOIL 0.35 FRICTION FACTOR for SOIL on ROCK 0.35 PASSIVE SOIL RESISTANCE 300 PCF DESIGN SAFETY FACTOR 1.20 SAFETY FACTOR MINIMAL INSPECTION - 3.00 SAFETY FACTOR CONSTANT CONTROL - 2.00 i B. CALCULATION VARIABLES INCREMENTAL HEIGHT of ROCKERY - 1.0 FT MAXIMUM FAILURE PLANE ANGLE is CALCULATED for EACH INCREMENT of HEIGHT of ROCKERY ____ ___-__ _ ______ __-__--___ WALL MIN. WALL THICKNESS (ft) HEIGHT (ft) OVERTURN SLIDING 29.0 2.6 2.6 19.9 2.6 2.0 18.9 2.0 2.6 17.0 2.0 2.6 16.0 2.8 2.9 15.6 2.6 2.6 14.6 2.0 2.0 13.0 2.0 2.8 12.0 2.8 2.0 11.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 2.0 2.1 9.9 2.9 2.3 8.6 2.0 2.5 7.9 2.8 2.7 6.6 2.0 2.9 5.0 2.2 3.2 4.0 2.4 3.4 3.0 2.6 3.6 2.0 2.8 3.8 1.0 3.0 4.9 3.3 4.2 ' The inconsistant slopes between rocks, and the short points of contact, are indications of poor control during construction, therefore the existing safety factors vary greatly throughout the rockery. D. SAFETY OF ROCKERY FOR WORST ANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS 1. SOILS BEHIND ROCKERY HEMPHILL estimates that the worst possible future conditions might occur if the soils behind the rockery should become saturated, which could reduce cohesion from 100 psf to 0 psf by breaking the capillary tension bonds, could reduce the internal friction from 0.60 to 0.45 by increasing the pore and seepage pressures, and could increase the weight of the soils. Figure 8 shows the rockery thicknesses, based on the worst anticipated conditions, and for a safety factor of 1.2, to be similar to the existing rockery. The calculations for Figure 8 do not include any adjustments for contact surfaces between rocks that are sloped less than 20 degrees, or points of contact that are less than the minimum required distance for overturning. Figure 6 shows that -decreasing the angle of contact from the design 20 degrees to observed 0 degrees (horizontal) will decrease the safety factor by 30% to approximately 0.8, which is well below failure. Figure 9 shows that to increase the safety factor to 2.0 for the worst anticipated conditions, the base rocks must exceed 7 feet in thickness from front to rear, and the contact slopes must not be less than 20 degrees. 2. SOILS IN FRONT OF ROCKERY The soils beneath and in front of the rockery must prevent sliding and kick -out at the base of the rockery. Those. resisting forces are accomplished by friction between the bottom rock and and the underlying soil, and by the shearing resistance of the soils in front of the bottom rock. E H E M P H I L L FIGURE 9 REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING ROCKERY FOR SAFETY FACTOR OF 2.0 SAFETY FACTOR ---_------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 WALL HEIGHT OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID 20.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2-8 2.0 2.0 2*0 2.0 2.0 19.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.0 2.9 18.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 2 A 2.0 2.0 17.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 16.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.8 15.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.9 2.0 3.5 14.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.9 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.1 13.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.1 2.3 4.8 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.9 2.4 4.7 2.7 5.5 11.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.4 2.3 4.3 2.7 5.3 3.1 6.2 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.1 3.8 2.7 4.8 3.1 5.9 3.6 6.9 9.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.4 4.1 3.0 5.3 3.5 6.5 4.0 7.6 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.7 4.5 3.4 5.8 3.9 7.0 4.5 8.3 7.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 3.5 3.0 4.9 3.7 6.3 4.4 7.6 4.9 9.0 6.0 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.8 3.4 5.3 4.1 6.7 4.8 8.2 5.4 9.7 5.0 2.9 2.5 2.8 4.1 3.7 5.7 4.5 7.2 5.2 8.8 5.8 10.4 4.0 2.0 2.7 3.0 4.4 4.0 6.0 4.8 7.7 5.6 9.4 6.3 11.1 3.0 2.1 2.8 3.3 4.6 4.3 6.4 5.2 8.2 6.6 10.0 6.8 11.8 2.0 2.3 3.6 3.5 4.9 4.6 6.8 5.6 8.7 6.4 10.6 7.2 12.4 1.0 2.5 3.2 3.8 5.2 4.9 7.2 5.9 9.2 6.8 11.1 7.7 13.1 2.7 3.4 4.1 5.4 5.3 7.5 6.3 9.6 7.3 11.7 8.1 13.8 Since the rockery is estimated to weigh approximately 8000 pounds per foot of length, and the friction factor between the bottom rock and the underlying soil is estimated to be a minimum of 0.3, then the frictional resistance to sliding is approximately 2400 pounds. Since the worst soil force is shown on Figure 3 to exceed 4000 pounds, then the soils in front of the rockery must resist a minimum of 1600 pounds plus an additional 2000 pounds for a safety factor. HEMPHILL has determined that to resist the worst soil conditions, the rockery should be keyed into the soils a minimum of 2 feet, and that assumes that the existing soils retain their present strength. 9 H E M P H I L L IV CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS Since there was no evidence of damage in the area of the ' swimming pool behind the rockery, HEMPHILL assumed that there has not been any significant movement of the rockery prior to the time of the investigation. ' The investigation and studies revealed that the rockery might presently exist at a very low safety factor, and that a change in the groundwater conditions could increase the ' soil pressures on the rockery beyond its capacity. HEMPHILL estimates that the worst possible future conditions ' might occur if the soils behind the rockery should become saturated. That could reduce the cohesive strength to 0 psf by breaking the capillary tension bonds, could reduce the ' internal friction from 0.60 to 0.45 by increasing the pore and seepage pressures, and could increase the unit weight of the soil by as much as 10 pcf. The lateral soil pressures could increase by as much as 350%. The inconsistent slopes of contact surfaces between rocks, the short points of contact, and the insufficient depth of ' key for the base rocks, are indications of poor control during construction, or possibly little knowledge of the mechanics of rockeries, therefore the existing safety factors vary greatly throughout the rockery. The overall safety of the rockery is no greater than the worst !' conditions. i' Although there is no evidence of any failure, the studies indicate that the rockery exists with a low safety factor, and that any change in the drainage conditions could cause ' the rockery to fail by sliding, overturning, or kicking out at the base. The rockery was not engineered and inspected by qualified ' persons, and no records exist of the construction materials and -methods, and -a failure of the rockery could -endanger - lives and could cause significant property damage, therefore HEMPHILL recommends that further studies be conducted to ' determine the true soil and drainage conditions, and that the safety of the rockery be re-evaluated. Hfo Dal C. Hemphill, P E. Q goo WASyi %* • N Z i ' � Registered Engineer No. 14777 �U�.='•.'Nistelq;.o0�� State of Washington Fss��NAI•E�� 10 HEMPHILL